DAYANIDHI BHUKTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant assails the judgment and order of conviction under Section 32.IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir, in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1992. The charge levelled, against the appellant was that on 15 -1 -1992 he assaulted Sumitra Bhukta (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), his daughter -in -law with an axe and committed her murder.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant an old man aged 75 used to have frequent quarrels with the deceased and this is the reason why he, although was residing under the same roof with his son, was cooking his food separately. On the date of incident, i. e. on 15 -1 -1992, at about noon, the appellant hit the deceased with an axe and caused her instantaneous death. He had been seen by Dhanmat Saraf, PW 1 while coming out of the place of incident with an axe smeared with blood. PW 1 then reported the matter to the Sub -Inspector of Police, PW 7 who registered a case and proceeded with the investigation in course of which he held inquest over the body of the deceased, sent the dead body for post -mortem examination, seized blood -stained earth, wearing apparels of the deceased as well as the appellant, blood stained axe and nail scrapping of the appellant, examined the witnesses and after closure of investigation, placed charge -sheet against the appellant under Section 302, IPC to face the trial.

(3.) THE prosecution, in oder to bring home the charge to the appellant, examined as many as seven witnesses of whom Daitari Bhukta (PW 3) is the sole eye -witness to the incident, Dhanmat Saraf the informant (PW 1) and Govinda Chandra Tandi (PW 2) are the post occurrence witnesses and Juglal Bhukta (PW 4) is the son of the appellant. Dr. Sarat Kumar Routrai (PW 5) is the doctor who conducted autopsy and Ganesh Chandra Pradhan (PW 7) is the Investigating Officer The learned trial Judge upon consideration of the evidence and mainly relying on the evidence of the sole eye -witness (PW 3) held the appellant guilty of the charge and consequently, convicted and sentenced him as hereinbefore stated.