SIMMON TOPPO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-6-1998 passed by the learned Sessions judge, Sundargarh in S. T. No. 245 of 1995, wherein he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302/201 of IPC and sentenced him thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years respectively.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the prosecution case is that P. Ws. 6, 7 deceased Anita Bada, an unmarried girl the accused-appellant and some others were engaged as labourers for about two months to dig the well of P. W. 9. In course of such engagement, intimacy developed between the accused-appellant and the deceased leading to their physical relationship and pregnancy of the deceased. When the pregnancy could be known, on 23-Against order of N. K. Rajaguru Mohapatra, sessions Judge, Sundargarh, D/- 22-6-1998. 7-1995 the deceased requested P. Ws. 6 and 7 to escort her to the house of accused-appellant situated in village Bheluadihi. Accordingly, when all the three were going to that village, on the way, they met the accused-appellant and disclosed before him that the deceased was in the family way. The accused-appellant requested them to wait there till he returned from his house and so saying went to his house and returned back after some time. Then they went to a nearby cashew nut field, where leaving the deceased in the company of accused-appellant, P. Ws. 6 and 7 left for their home. Since the deceased did not return, on the next date, her parents enquired regarding the whereabouts of the deceased from P. Ws. 6 and 7, who disclosed that they left her with the accused-appellant in a cashew nut field on the previous date. The parents of the deceased reported the matter to P. W. 1, the ward member of their village. On 25-7-1995, P. W. 1 along with P. W. 2, (mother of the deceased)and P. Ws. 6 and 7 went to the house of the accused-appellant and enquired from him regarding the whereabouts of the deceased. He admitted that the deceased was conceived through him and on the relevant date, i. e. 23-7-1995, he gave her Rs. 20/- to get the pregnancy terminated at Rajgangpur and made her board a bus bound for rajgangpur, assuring her that he was following the bus on a cycle. He went on a cycle to Rajgangpur, searched for the deceased and having failed in tracing her out, left for his village. On 27-7-1995, P. W. 2 described the dead body of the deceased floating in chingrijharia Nala and informed this fact to p. W. 1. Having known this, P. W. 1 went to lanjiberna outpost and submitted a written report before the A. S. I. (P. W. 15) who registered U. D. case No. 5/95 and enquired into the matter. In course of enquiry, he visited the spot, got the dead body fished out from the Nala, held inquest over it, prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body to Brajrajnagar Government Hospital for autopsy. On conclusion of enquiry, when prima facie it was found out that the accused-appellant murdered the deceased, he lodged a written report on his own information on 30-7-1995 vide Ext. 7 before P. W. 16, inspector-in-Charge of Rajgangpur Police Station which was treated as FIR. Accordingly, P. W. 16 registered P. S. Case No. 96/95 for the offence under Sections 302/201 of IPC and investigated into the case. It course of investigation, he examined P. W. 15, perused the case record of U. D. Case No. 5/95, tested the witnesses already examined by P. W. 15, examined some more witnesses, visited the spot and prepared the spot map under Ext. 8, arrested the accused-appellant and forwarded him to Court, collected the postmortem examination report from the doctor and after completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case against the accused-appellant, submitted charge-sheet against him under Sections 302/201 of IPC. The case having been committed to the Sessions judge, Sundargarh, was registered as S,t. Case No. 245/1995. On denial of the charge, the accused-appellant faced trial for the offence under Sections 302/201 of IPC.

(3.) TO bring home the charge levelled agianst the accused-appellant, prosecution examined 16 witnesses as against none by the defence. Admittedly, there was no eyewitness to the occurrence. So, the case mainly rested on circumstantial evidence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the circumstantial evidence brought against the accused-appellant was sufficient to hold him guilty for. the offence under Sections 302/201 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him thereunder as stated earlier. The present appeal has been preferred against the said judgment and order of conviction.