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, 498-A 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 498-A 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 and 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 jharan Parbat. One sickle and some 'silai' leaves were lying nearby 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 302/498-A/494 ipc, investigation was taken up and charge-sheet was submitted for commission of the aforesaid offences.

(3.) PROSECUTION examined eight witnesses to prove the charges but none was examined on behalf of the defence. The plea of defence is that the appellant was not present in the village on the date of occurrence and only found the dead body of the deceased in course of search. Out of eight witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 Kapila Behera is the father of the deceased, who had lodged the information. PW2 is a post occurrence witness, who turned hostile during trial. PW3 is a witness to inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PWs 4 and 5 are the co-villagers, who participated in searching the deceased. They also speak about the ill-feeling between the deceased and appellant. PWs 6 and 7 are witnesses to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased. They have also stated about the second marriage of the appellant. PW8 is the Investigating Officer. On the basis of evidence of these witnesses, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of charge and convicted him thereunder.