STATE Vs. DURYODHAN ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REFERENCE made under Section 366 of Cr. P. C. by Addl. Sessions Judge, angul to confirm the death sentence passed in Criminal Trial (Sessions) No. 80 of 2005/8 of 2005 registered as dsref No. 2 of 2007 and JCRLA No. 12 of 2007 preferred by the accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated the prosecution case is that, on 11-9-2004 at about 3 p. m. accused Duryodhan Rout, on the pretext that the deceased, Subhasini a minor girl aged about 10 years would talk over phone with his brother, Bamodev Bhoi working at bargarh from the house of Bijaya Bhoi of village-Anandpur took her on a bicycle. When the evening set in, the accused alone returned to the village and on enquiry about subhasini by P. W. 5, her father, he told that she had gone with a woman of Ranibandha to her house. On the next day, as she did not return P. W. 5 again questioned the accused regarding the whereabout of the deceased. The accused confessed in presence of Rabi Biswal (P. W. 3), Dasarathi Bhoi (P. W. 4)and Subashini Bhoi that he killed the deceased by pressing her neck. With the help of these three witnesses P. W. 5 took the accused to Thakurgarh P. S. got the FIR scribed by one Laxman Senapati and lodged it before P. W. 8 the O. I. C. of the said Police Station. As the allegation contained in the FIR revealed a cognizable case, P. W. 8 registered p. S. Case No. 51 dated 12-9-2004 under section 302/201 of IPC and took up inves tigation. In course of investigation, he examined the witnesses, arrested the accused, recorded his statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on the basis of which he went to the spot made recovery of the dead body of the deceased, held inquest over it, seized the Chadi of the victim lying near the spot, prepared seizure list in respect thereof and sent the dead body to athamalik Hospital for autopsy. He also seized the wearing apparels of the accused, forwarded him to the Court on 13-12-2004 and handed over charge of investigation of the case to the C. I. of Police, Athamalik (P. W. 7), who tested the witnesses, already examined by P. W. 8, prayed the Court for sending the seized wearing apparels for chemical examination and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 376/302/201 of IPC. The case having been committed to the Court of sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, was transferred to the Court of Addl. District and sessions Judge, Angul for disposal. Accordingly, the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, angul framed charge under Section 376 (f)/302/201 of the IPC against the accused and proceeded with the trial. The plea of the accused was complete denial. It was his further plea that because of previous enmity of his family members with the informant, the case was foisted against him to take vengeance.

(3.) IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined 8 witnesses, while the accused examined himself as D. W. 1 besides examining D. W. 2, his father to prove his stand. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 376 (f)/302/201 of IPC convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to death for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. He also sentenced him to undergo R. I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 (f) of IPC and R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. It was further ordered that in default of payment of fine, the convict would suffer imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 376 (f) of IPC and three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. To confirm the sentence of death, the trial Court referred the case to this Court under Section 366 of Cr. P. C. and according DSREF No. 2 of 2007 was registered. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, while undergoing imprisonment, the accused preferred the aforesaid appeal as stated earlier.