BASU KHADIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 144 of 1998 convicting the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal. Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as revealed from the record is that the deceased is the daughter of P. Ws.1 and 10. P.W.1 is the mother and P.W.10 is the father. The deceased was of marriageable age. Her marriage had been settled with the son of the brother of P.W.1. The Appellant wanted to marry the deceased but neither P.W.1 nor P.W.10 agreed to such proposal. For the above reason, the Appellant had a grudge against P. Ws.1 and 10. Prior to the occurrence also the Appellant had threatened the deceased to kill her and kill himself unless she agrees to marry him. On 11.12.1998 when nobody was there in the house, it is alleged that the Appellant went to the house of the deceased and stabbed her by means of a knife. When P.W.1 was coming back to home after taking bath, she saw the Appellant coming out of the house with the knife. After entering into the house, P.W.1 found the deceased lying with a pool of blood having sustained injuries in her persons and she disclosed before her that she had been stabbed by the Appellant. P.W.1 thereafter raised alarm and many persons including P.W.11, the brother of P.W.1 and P.W.10, the husband of P.W.1 reached the house. After getting information from P.W.1, P.W.10 went to Katarbaga Police Station along with P.W.7 and lodged the information verbally which was reduced into writing by P.W.12 and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination shows that the deceased had sustained five penetrating injuries and therefore could not have been in a position to make a dying declaration before P.W.1. So far as extra judicial confession is concerned, it was contended by the learned Counsel that P.W.2 has not said about the exact confession made by the Appellant and therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 to that effect cannot be accepted. It was also contended that merely on the basis of the evidence regarding the previous threat, the Appellant could not have been found guilty of the charge. The learned Counsel for the State relied on the evidence relating to dying declaration, extra judicial confession, previous threat and the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.6 while defending the impugned judgment.