BUDHADEV PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh in S.T. Case No. 92/18 of 99 -2000 convicting the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 302, 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.'). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C., imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - for commission of offence under Section 494 IPC and further imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - for commission of offence under Section 498A IPC. However, sentence have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION case as revealed from the record is that appellant is the husband of deceased Sandhya Pradhan and their marriage took place in the year 1992. After marriage both of them were staying together an leading a happy married life but in course of time, appellant developed intimacy with Mina Sahu of village Jharposi. It is alleged by the prosecution that appellant ultimately brought the said Mina Sahu to his house, which was objected to by the deceased. Because of the above reason, there was ill -feeling between the appellant and deceased and the appellant subjected the deceased to ill -treatment and the deceased somehow earned her livelihood by plucking and selling leave from the jungle. On 5.2.1998, deceased had been to a nearby Jharan Parbat to pluck leaves but did not return to the village. On suspicion, the relatives of the deceased searched for her and in course of such search on the next day, dead body of the deceased was found near Jharana Parbat. One sickle and some 'Silai' leaves were lying near by the dead body. There were marks of injuries on the body of the deceased and the appellant who was present along with searching party wanted to consign the dead body to the fire but the father of the deceased did not agree and lodged the F.I.R. suspecting foul play by the appellant. On the above allegations, the F.I.R. having been lodged for commission of offence under Sections 302/498A/494 IPC, investigation was taken up and charge sheet was submitted for commission of the aforesaid offences.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the appellant that so far as offence under Section 302 is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence on record to support the said charge. The trial Court has convicted the appellant more or less on surmises. So far as offences under Section 498A and 494 are concerned, it was contended by the learned Counsel that the evidence of the witnesses relied upon are not trustworthy. Therefore, the trial Court should not have convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that there being no eyewitness to the occurrence, the prosecution relies on only circumstantial evidence. Learned Counsel for the State further submits that there was ill -feeling between the deceased and appellant consequent upon the appellant bringing a second wife. There was a village meeting in relation to the same and the evidence of the witnesses clearly prove that appellant was not pulling on well with the deceased. The dead body of the deceased clearly showed that she had been assaulted and it is the appellant, who alone could have done it,