GOKULANANDA DUBEY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT challenges the order of conviction and sentence under section 302, I. P. C. recorded against him by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda on 16-3-2000 in Sessions Trial Case No. 79/54 of 1999.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegation of the prosecution, on 14-4-1997, appellant committed murder of his wife Fulfuli (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased' ). At about 6. 00 p. m. , P. W. 5 arrived at the spot in course of a stroll and gathered information about the occurrence from the accused and the neighbours and accordingly lodged the F. I. R. , Ext. 9. on receipt of information, P. W. 10, the Investigating Officer undertook the investigation and on completion of the same, submitted charge-sheet. In course of investigation, as deposed by him he has made spot visit, made inquest over the dead body and forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination. He also seized the blood-stained cement and other incriminating materials from the spot. Such seizures include seizure of the wooden plank (M. O. 1) lying in the house, which was pointed out by the accused to be the weapon of offence, the wearing apparels of the accused which he was wearing at the time of the alleged incident and the wearing apparels of the deceased M. Os. II and III, which was seized after the post-mortem examination. Accused denied to the charge under Section 302, I. P. C, and claimed for trial. In course of the trial, ten witnesses were examined, amongst them, P, W. 2 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body, P. W. 3 is the police constable, who escorted the dead body for post-mortem and rest of the witnesses are the villagers including PWs, 6 and 9, who are respectively, the, father-in-law and the brother-in-law of the accused. Each of the aforesaid witnesses was confronted with the facts situation of the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant.

(3.) ON assessment of the evidence on record and the documents, i. e. post-mortem report, Ext, 1, opinion report, Ext, 2/1, the f. I, R. Ext. 9, report of the R. F, S. L. , Ext, 11 and the statements recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. confronted to the witnesses and Exts. 12 to 17, learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded the finding that though the witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution not only on proof of the extrajudicial confession but also on the relationship between the accused and the deceased, presumption of residing together was absolutely available and therefore the conduct of the accused in not reacting on seeing the dead body of the deceased makes it inferable that he is the author of the crime. Recording such finding and relying on some decisions in that respect, learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for his conviction under Section 302, I. P. C.