CHAUHAN SAMARATH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was charge -sheeted and ultimately charge was framed against him under Section 302, I.P.C. on the accusation that on 14.06.1997 at about 4. A.M. in village Dhamandanga he intentionally committed murder by dealing a Tabli (Axe) blow to the neck of his wife Majeen Samarath, (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). After a full dressed trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge found him responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased and accordingly, convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The Appellant challenges that order of conviction.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, accused executed sale deed and transferred some of his landed properties in favour of Benudhar Meher (P.W.4). The deceased was protesting to such sale transacted by the accused and had left the matrimonial house in the past and about 3 days before the date of occurrence, accused brought her back to his house. According to the further case of the prosecution on 14.06.1997 at about 4 A.M., because of the quarrel between the spouses, accused dealt a Tabli blow cutting the neck on the right side and resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased. Accused leaving the deceased and the weapon of offence in his bed -room, ran away but later on police arrested him. Durlava Samarath (P.W.5) is the son of the accused and the deceased. He lodged the F.I.R., Ext.8 at Kantabanji Police Station. Police Officers of Kantabanji Police Station undertook the investigation and in course of that not only held inquest over the dead body and forwarded the same for postmortem examination but also seized incriminating materials during the spot visit and also arrested the accused at a later date and seized blood -stained wearing apparels. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted against the accused.

(3.) IT is admitted by the prosecution that there was no eye -wetness to the occurrence, therefore, prosecution proved the charge through circumstantial evidence. In furtherance thereof, prosecution examined eight witnesses. Out of them P.W.5, being the son of the accused and the deceased, stated that his parents were in one room and in the morning he saw his father running away while his mother was lying dead with bleeding injury on neck and the weapon of offence lying at the spot. Pitabasa Majhi (P.W.6) is the nephew (Bhanaja) of the accused and the deceased. He was examined to prove the conduct of the accused in running away and making extra -judicial confession to him. The other witness is Digambar Puta (P.W.7), who was examined to prove the extra -judicial confession of the accused. Pravakar Panika, P.W.2 is a witness to the inquest and Pranadananda Mohanty (P.W.3) is a witness to the inquest report, Ext.5 and seizure list, Ext.6, under which blood -stained and sample earth etc. were seized from the spot of occurrence. Benudhar Mahar (P.W.4) is a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the accused, marked M.O. II to IV and seized under the seizure list, Ext.7. Dr. Sevak Meher (P.W.1) is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the postmortem report, Ext.4 besides his opinion report, Ext.3 on examining the Axe, M.O.I. He also examined the injuries of the accused on police requisition and proved the injury certificate, Ext.1 and the report relating to collection of nail clipping of the accused under Ext.2.