SUKURIA NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, berhampur in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1996 (S. C. No. 423/95-GDC) convicting the appellant for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and further convicting him for commission of offence under Section 201 of the i. P. C. However, no separate sentence has been imposed for commission of offence under Section 201 of the I. P. C.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that the appellant is the husband of the deceased asanti. The deceased was aged about 18 years and one Dinabandhu Naik, a co-accused, is the father of the appellant. After marriage the deceased came to the house of father of the appellant and stayed there. Sometime before the occurrence the deceased had gone to her father's house, but the appellant is alleged to have taken back her forcibly. On another occasion the appellant had gone with the deceased to the house of the informant Udayanath Naik and had assaulted the deceased. On 28. 7. 1995 the informant udayanath Naik came to know about death of the deceased which is alleged to have taken pace in the night on 26/27. 7. 1995 from gramarakhi and accordingly F. I. R. was lodged by the father of the deceased. The police had earlier registered an U. D. case being informed by the Gramarakhi about the death of the deceased and the U. D. case was converted to a regular police case and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his father Dinabandhu Naik for commission of offences under Sections 498a/304b/201/34 of the i. P. C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the appellant and his father faced trial for commission of the aforesaid offences.

(3.) IN order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, but none was examined on behalf of the defen. ce. Plea of the defence is completely denial of the prosecution case. The Trial Court on the basis of the testimonies of the so-called eyewitness (PW3)and the extra-judicial confession made before PW2 found the appellant guilty of commission of the offences under Sections 3027 201 of the I. P. C. and convicted him thereunder. So far as father of the appellant dinabandhu Naik is concerned, learned additional Sessions Judge did not find any evidence against him and acquitted him of the charges.