BINATI MAHAKUD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails the order of conviction recorded against her under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (the Code, for short) by the learned trial Judge sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life for committing the murder of her husband Rama Behera (to be described hereinafter as 'the deceased') on July 12, 1981 at Kakharupada in the district of Mayurbhanj.

(2.) The order of conviction has been based on the unimpeachable evidence of the sole witness to the occurrence, namely, P.W.3, who has testified that she had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased by means of a Kodala (M.O.I.), the clear and acceptable evidence with regard to the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before P.Ws.4 and 5, who had gone to the spot after the occurrence to the effect that she had killed her husband by means of a Kodala, the voluntary confessional statement (Ext.10) of the appellant which had duly and legally been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate that she had killed her husband by means of a Kodala, the recovery of M.O.I. and the wearing clothes of the appellant, all stained with blood, which on chemical and serological test, were found to contain human blood and the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 1) who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and had found a number of antemortem injuries which could be caused by M.O.I, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The retracted confessional statements of the appellant has found sufficient assurance from the other evidence.

(3.) Regard being had to the aforesaid clinching and unassailable evidence, Mr. Das, appearing for the appellant, has not challenged the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant had killed her husband by dealing strokes by means of M.O.I. Mr. Das has contended that the evidence including the confessional statement, read as a whole, would show that whatever had been done by the appellant had been done by her while she was deprived of the power of self-control by the grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased and thus the act of the appellant would come within the purview of the first exception to Section 300 of the Code and would be culpable under Section 304, Part I of the Code. The learned Additional Government Advocate has candidly and fairly submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in this regard should prevail.