SAPNESWAR DEHURI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The appellants challenge the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur convicting them under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C for short) for having committed the murder of deceased Subhadra and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased, a young woman, was the daughter of the informant (P. W. 1) and was married to P.W. 2, son of appellant Sapneswar. Appellant Rajkumari is the wife of appellant Sapneswar. Appellant Kamala their daughter and appellant Sartika is Kamalas husband. All the appellants along with the deceased and her husband (P.W. 2) were living in the house of appellant Sapneswar at village Satkhama. P.W. 1 belongs to village Sahajbahal. Prior to the date of occurrence P.W. 2 had gone to visit his father-in-law (P.W. 1) at village. Sahajbahal. On that day at about 10 am. P.W. 3 came to village Sahajbahal and informed P.Ws. 1 and 2 that the deceased was lying seriously ill. On receiving this information P.W. 1, his wife and P.W. 2 started and arrived at village Satkhama at about 12.30 p.m. and found that Subhadra was dead and there was an injury on her neck. Appellant Sapneswar, on enquiry by P.W. 1 as to the cause of death, told that the deceased was suffering from diarrhoea and was vomiting which resulted in her death despite treatment by a doctor. The deceased was hale and hearty and her death was sudden. Therefore, P.W. 1 suspected foul play and so he reported the incident on the same day at about 4 p.m. at the Police Station and on his information F.I.R. (Ext. 15) was recorded and investigation was commenced. During investigation, it came to light that the deceased was throttled to death and it was a case of homicide. After close of investigation charge- sheet was submitted against the appellants for having committed the murder of the deceased in the night between 10th and 11th July 1985. According to the defence of the appellants, the deceased died of diarrhoea and vomiting despite medical treatment.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions TJudge believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellants as already referred to above.