GHASIRAM LAKRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal from Jail Ghasiram Lakra (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') calls in question the legality of his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I.P.C.') and the sentence of imprisonment for ten years as awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in S.T. Case No. 153/ 39 of 1992.

(2.) The prosecution version as depicted during trial is as follows :-On 29-4-92 at about 8.45 p.m. a telephonic message was received at Biramitrapur Police Station from the Octroi check-gate located at Talsara intimating that a man having been assaulted was lying senseless near the check-gate. The fact was entered in the Station Diary vide S.D. Entry No. 602 (Ext.23) and the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 16) along with some other Police Officials immediatelyrushed to the spot. At the spot, the wife of the deceased (P. W.12) reported the matter to the Sub-Inspector. As per her version, the deceased was in visiting terms to the house of lady named Damayanti alias Tuni 'Singaldhipa'. The people of the said locality were suspecting illicit relationship between the deceased and Damayanti. On the date of occurrence at about 11.30 a.m., the deceased left the house for Rourkela and was scheduled to come back by the evening train. At about 7.30 p.m. the train reached Biramitrapur. After some time of the arrival of the train, the brother of the informant (P.W. 14) came to her house and called her to go to their residence without ascribing any reason. Accordingly, she came to her father's house at Talasara, where she was informed by her mother that the accused had committed murder of her husband Manga near the Octroi check-gate. She came near the check-gate and found her husband lying dead afflicted with serious injuries. On arrival of the police she stated her complaint orally which was treated as F.I.R. (Ext.3). The Investigating agency conducted the investigation and after completing the formalities ultimately submitted the charge-sheet, and the petitioner faced his trial.

(3.) The accused denied the charges in totality.