STATE Vs. LABENDRA TANDIA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard

(2.) The accused persons faced the trial for the offence under Ss. 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that in the night between 22nd and 23rd December 1989 Siriya Tandia, the deceased, was found hanging in her matrimonial home i.e. in the house of the accused persons. of the two accused, Labendra Tandia is her husband and Tirtha Tandia is her husband's brother. On the basis of the information given by the father of the accused persons Judhistir Tandia (P.W.15), a case of unnatural death was registered and P.W. 16, i.e. the ASI of Sargipali Police Out Post, took up the enquiry. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and dispatched the same for post - mortem examination. On police requisition, Dr. Dhabaleswar Choudhury (P.W.11) conducted post -mortem examination and found presence of two ligature marks on the dead body of the deceased. He held that first ligature mark was due to homicidal strangulation whereas the second ligature mark was after the death. In view of the aforesaid opinion of P.W. 11, the Enquiry Officer suspected it to be a case of homicide and accordingly F.I.R. was lodged and P.W. 12 -Prasana Kumar Rout as the Officer -in -charge of Lephripara Police Station took up the investigation. From the evidence collected in course of such investigation, he came to the opinion that both the accused persons committed manual strangulation of the deceased and gave it a color of suicidal hanging and that the motive behind such crime was non -fulfilling the demand of the accused persons after her (deceased) marriage with accused Labendra in Chaitra, 1989.

(3.) To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Besides the above noted witnesses, the other prosecution witnesses are P.W. 1 who did not state anything about the occurrence or anything implicating the accused persons, P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 who have given similar evidence and P.W. 5 who deposed that on the request of P.W. 15 he went and informed the incident to P.Ws. 7 and 8 who are respectively the father and brother of the deceased. P.W. 9 the Grama Rakhi came and saw the deceased hanging and informed the police. P.W. 10 a Police Constable from the out post had come and guarded the dead body till arrival of ASI and also identified the dead body to the doctor P.W. 11 and after post -mortem examination he returned the wearing apparels. P.W. 7, the father of the deceased and P.W. 8 the brother of the deceased, both stated about atrocities on the deceased by the accused husband not leaving her as and when they were coming to take her to their house and in some occasion P.W. 7 had seen accused Labendra assaulting the deceased. In that respect, however, P.W. 7 admitted in cross -examination that the deceased never complained against her husband and in his statement under Sec. 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. he (P.W.7) did not state that the accused assaulted the deceased. Similar is the position of evidence of P.W. 8 relating to the disputes between the spouses. P.W. 13 is the aunt (father's brother's wife) of the accused persons and P.W. 15 as already noted is the father of the accused persons. In their evidence both of them supported the defense plea of accused persons that accused Labendra was not present in the house by the time of occurrence so also the other inmates of the house including the co -accused were absent and that only the deceased and P.W. 13 were present. In the above context, P.W. 13 deposed that the deceased went to bathing ghat and before she could return P.W. 13 proceeded to the bathing ghat but by the time she reached the pond, P.W. 13 had already returned. The family of the accused persons, i.e. the family of P.W. 15 and the family of P.W. 13, remain in the same premises and that when she (P.W.13) returned, she found the deceased was hanging and was dead.