PIUS BARUA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.08.2004 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Rourkela in S.T. Case No. 180/53 of 2003. The learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Rourkela, vide the impugned judgment and order, held the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") guilty of the charge under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.l. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default in payment of fine, to undergo R.l. for three months more, for his conviction under Section 302 of IPC.

(2.) Prosecution case as placed before the Trial Court is that the accused was a resident of village-Potab under Hatibari P.S. of Sundargarh district. On 19.08.2002, the deceased-wife of the accused, namely, Bernadic Baruwa had been to the field to transplant the paddy and returned from there at about 8 p.m. in a state of inebriation. As she had spent Rs. 50/- of the accused in consuming liquor, there was a quarrel between the accused and her. During the course of such quarrel, the accused dealt a slap to her for which she ran away from the house, but the accused chased her and on the way, he caught hold her and dealt another slap and then pulling her tuft, he dragged her to a place under a 'Jamun' tree standing on the foot of a hillock locally known as "Pati Pahad" and smashed her head with a stone and left her dead body there. Some days thereafter, human skeleton with wearing apparels and bangles were found by some goatherds who had been to thee for grazing their goats, which was identified to be the dead body of the deceased from the wearing apparels and other belongings, by the brother of the deceased. The accused also made confession of the same and as such, being informed of the same, a report was lodged by the then Sarpanch of Karkatnasa G.P. (PW. 1) vide Ext. 1 pursuant to which Hatibari P.S. Case No. 37 of 2002 was registered and investigation was carried on and during the course of investigation, the FIR allegations being found to have substance, police placed charge under Sections 302/201 of IPC. The learned SDJM, Panposh after taking cognizance, committed the case to the Court of sessions. Hence, the accused be proceeded with.

(3.) Considering the aforesaid case of the prosecution which was also supported by the relevant materials collected during the investigation, the Trial Court framed charge against the accused for the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and took the plea of denial and false implication. The prosecution, as such, examined as many as sixteen witnesses and also exhibited certain documents in order to establish the charge. But, in his defence, the accused, who had taken the plea of denial and false implication, neither adduced any evidence nor exhibited any documents. The Trial Court on conclusion of the trial, returned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated earlier, which have been assailed here in this appeal.