GARUDA MEHER Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and the judgment is as follows:

(2.) IT reveals from the lower court record that Janaki, the deceased was the wife of the accused by the date of occurrence, i.e. 24.7.1997. According to the prosecution, accused and the deceased had separated from the other two brothers p.ws.1 and 2 and mother p.w.4 but were living in the same premises. On 24.7.1997 at about 5 to 5.30 p.m., p.ws.1 and 4 heard cry of the deceased and on reaching the living room of the house of the accused, they found that the accused was assaulting the deceased by a Merha" and he cautioned them (p.ws.1 and 4) not to intervene or else he would assault them p.w.1, the younger brother of the accused finding no other way reported the matter at Lachhipur outpost. The accused remained inside the room with deceased in dead condition and it is by application of threat by police that accused could be brought out of the room and was arrested besides taking routine investigation regarding conducting inquest, seizure of incriminating articles, etc. Besides p.w.1, p.w.4 the mother of the accused was the other eye witness to the occurrence. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge -sheet and accused faced the trial for the charge under Section 302, IPC. To substantiate he charge, prosecution examined eight witnesses and relied on documents marked Exts.1 to 11 and the merha, the weapon of offence as M.O.I. Accused examined eight witnesses in support of his plea of denial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on assessment of evidence held that the deceased suffered homicidal death and the accused is the author of the injury which resulted in homicidal death of the deceased. In that respect, learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that evidence of p.ws.1 and 4 has been supported by the accused in course of his examination under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, Learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the conviction and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life.

(3.) ADMISSION of the crime at the stage of recording of statement under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. by itself cannot give only implication that the accused possesses an abnormal mind. It may also be a case of repentance or frankness or boldness. Under such circumstances, in the absences of proof that accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind so as not to be capable of judging good or bad of the act done by him, the benefit of the provision of Section 84, IPC cannot be extended to him 6. Mr Pani alternatively argues that at least the benefit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder be extended to the accused because the assault must have been as a result of sudden quarrel between him and his wife. Such a contention of the Appellant could have been considered, had there been an iota of evidence in that respect or even a suggestion to that effect or an explanation from the accused in course of his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the absence of availability of any such material, extending the benefit of explanation - 4 provided under 300, IPC is not possible. Therefore, we also reject that argument of the Appellant.