DHOBULU SAUNTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard argument and the judgment is as follows:

(2.) Prosecution case is that the deceased had gone to her parents' house and returned to her matrimonial house a few days before the date of occurrence. The accused and the deceased have two children out of the wedlock but usually in the night they were sleeping in the house of Krushna Saunta (P.W.5), one of the younger brothers of the accused. Dharma Saunta (P.W.4) is the other younger brother of the accused. Both the aforesaid two brothers of the accused live separately in separate houses but in the same village. The distance as deposed to between the house of the accused and his brothers is about 200 to 300 ft. According to the further case of the prosecution, in the night of 18.9.1996 Misra Saunta (P.W.8) being the adjoining neighbour on western side of the accused heard the shout of the deceased stating that the accused was assaulting her. He went and found that the door of the occurrence room was bolted from inside. He knocked at the door but did not get any response. Therefore, he approached Ansu Saunta (P.W.6) and Santi Jani (P.W.7), the two front door neighbours and along with them again came to the occurrence house. They heard sound MARIGALI MARIGALI. In spite of their efforts, they could not enter into the occurrence room because its door was closed from inside and due to darkness they did not dare to try from the back side of the house. On the following day, Jaga Saunta one of the minor sons of the accused and the deceased went and discovered the dead body of her mother and informed the matter to P.W.5. Thereafter, P.Ws. 4 and 5 and other villagers including P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 all discovered the deceased lying dead with multiple bleeding injuries. P. Ws. 6, 7 and 8 narrated about the previous night experience and thereafter F.I.R. Ext.7 was lodged by P.W.5 at Kakiriguma Police Station.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that Ext.6 cannot be read as a seizure under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act when there was no question of giving discovery of weapon from any place of concealment. He further argues that P.Ws. 6 to 8 did not state before the Trial Court that they had seen the accused assaulting or had known about his presence inside the occurrence room and that the report from S.F.S.L. Exts.19 and 19/1 does not ipso facto prove the crime against the Appellant. He argues that under the given facts and circumstances accused should have been granted the benefit of doubt. Learned Standing Counsel repelling the aforesaid argument of the Appellant contends that evidence of P.W.5 read together with evidence of P. Ws.6 to 8 would clearly indicate that the accused was in the house and cry of deceased sufficiently proves on record that it was the accused who committed the murder. Before dealing with the above aspect, we take note of the evidence of P.W.14. He has stated that in course of the post -mortem examination he noticed incised injuries on the left upper chest, left upper back, left lumbar region and right thigh. On dissection, he found fracture of 4th, 5th and 6th rib and injury to the middle lobe of the left lung. He opined that death was due to haemorrhage, shock and neurogenic shock produced due to injury to the left lung and also the multiple incised wounds. Indeed, the aforesaid evidence of P.W.14 clearly establishes homicidal death of the deceased.