I. CHINA RAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONVICTED under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and sentenced to imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1997, Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rayagada in the aforesaid case.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the informant -P.W.1 is a resident of village Debodala and is a driver by profession. He lodged the F.I.R. on 17.6.1997 alleging therein that his wife P. Padma (the deceased) had purchased certain clothes on credit from the Appellant who is otherwise known as Senapati for a sum of Rs. 2,000/ -. The deceased had promised to pay the amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 200/ -. She could not pay the instalments for the months of May and June 1996 for which the Appellant came to her house at 2 P.M. on 16.6.1996 and demanded payment of money. When the deceased expressed the difficulties for which she could not pay the amount, there was hot exchange of words and the Appellant left the place saying that he would come again at 8 P.M. to collect the money. The informant had to leave for Rayagada for his personal work and in his absence the Appellant came to his house, picked up quarrel again with the deceased and poured kerosene and set the deceased to fire as a result of which the deceased died. The villagers sent information to the Fire Brigade which extinguished the fire and took the deceased in a half burnt condition to Rayagada Hospital. The Doctor at the hospital recorded the dying declaration of the deceased while undergoing treatment but she succumbed to the injuries at 3 A.M. at night. The occurrence having taken place within Chandili P.S., the F.I.R. was transmitted to the said Police Station and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted against the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

(3.) OUT of 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1 is the informant and husband of the deceased. P. Ws.2, 3 and 4 are neighbours of the deceased. P.W.5 is the sister of the deceased and P.W.6 is a witness who knows the Appellant to be a cloth dealer. P.W.7 found the house of P.W.3 burning and also found the deceased lying being burnt by fire. He along with others extinguished the fire when the Fire Brigade vehicle arrived. P.W. 8 is another witness who knew the Appellant and had also seen the deceased coming out of her house in a burning condition and entering into the house of P.W.3. P.W.9 is the Doctor who was in emergency duty on the date of occurrence and this witness has also recorded the dying declaration. P.W. 10 is another Doctor who is senior to P.W.9 and was present at the time of recording of the dying declaration. P.W.11 is the scribe of the F.I.R. and P.W.12 is a witness who speaks about the dying declaration and P.W.13 is the I.O. The trial court on the basis of the evidence adduced before it held that the Appellant is otherwise known as Senapati and on the basis of the dying declaration found the Appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him thereunder.