PRASANTA KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the Parsian tragic epic of Sohrab and Rustom father killed the son without knowing the identity. In the case at hand, a young boy of ten has met homicidal death, Prasanta Kumar Sahu, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'), father of the deceased is said to be the perpetrator of the crime. The unfortunate deceased was living with his mother, brother and sister in their maternal grand-father's house. Accused married Janaki (P.W.3) sometime in 1981. There were frequent quarrels between the accused and his wife, which forced latter to leave her husband's house, and stay in the matrimonial home with the children for about four years preceding the date of occurrence, i.e., on 29-9-1991. Law was set into motion by Alekh Chandra Sahu (P.W.2) father-in-law of the accused alleging that on the date of incident at about 11 a.m. the deceased went out from his house and did not return till 4 p.m. Sankar Behera and two others came and reported to him that some one had slain his grandson. Immediately on hearing this news he and his daughter Janaki rushed towards the house of the accused and found the deceased lying with a pool of blood in a room of the first floor. The accused was present in the room and confessed to have killed his son. On the basis of information lodged, investigation was undertaken, and on completion thereof charge sheet was placed.

(2.) The accused pleaded innocence.

(3.) Though eleven witnesses were examined for highlighting various circumstances to fasten the guilt on the accused, there was no eye-witness. Accused did not examine any witness. Nine circumstances were highlighted by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Though P.W.2 made a departure from some statements made in the F.I.R.(Ext. 2), two letters were brought on record by him, which the accused allegedly wrote to him to contend that there was confession about commission of offence. Presence of blood or wearing apparels of the accused, his presence near dead body of the deceased and the extrajudicial confession allegedly contained in the letters formed the foundation of conviction by the learned Sessions Judge for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'), and sentence of imprisonment for life was awarded.