SHYAMADEV MANGARAJ Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No. 49/512 of 1996, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as revealed from the F.I.R. is that the deceased was the daughter of one Trilochan Das and the said Trilochan Das had three daughters and one son. The deceased being the eldest one, her marriage was fixed with Kamadeb Mangaraj, who is brother of the Appellant in the year 1992. The marriage was fixed to 5th May 1992. On 4th May 1992, when the family members of the deceased arrived in the house of the said Kamadeb Mangaraj, he escaped from the house and refused to marry the deceased on the ground that he was in love with the sister -in -law of his sister. However, the matter was taken up at the level of the senior members of both the families and it was decided that the deceased would be given marriage with the present Appellant, who was the younger brother of Kamadeb Mangaraj. In pursuance of such decision, the marriage took place and both the Appellant and deceased lived happily for a period of two to three years. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that in the year 1995, Kamadeb Mangaraj got married to Mamata with whom he had affair. Kamadeb was working in Angul and the Appellant was also staying in Angul. Both of them used to go to the village on certain occasions. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the Appellant developed illicit relationship with Mamata, the wife of his elder brother Kamadeb Mangaraj, for which there was a dissension between the Appellant and his wife. The Appellant had come to village to appear in the H.S.C. Examination as an ex -regular student four days prior to the incident. On 23.4.1995, informant -P.W.7 and others were informed by P.W.2 that the deceased was serious. Thereafter, they immediately proceeded to the house of the Appellant where the deceased lying dead on the verandah. Suspecting foul play, F.I.R. was lodged. On the basis of the allegation made in the F.I.R., case was registered, investigation was undertaken and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC only against the Appellant.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant referring to the evidence adduced before the trial Court, assails the impugned judgment on the ground that there being no eyewitness to the occurrence, the prosecution relies only on circumstantial evidence. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the relatives of the deceased admit that there was good relationship between the deceased and Appellant and they were pulling on well for about three years from the date of their marriage. The marriage having taken place in the year 1992 and the death having occurred in the year 1995, it can be safely presumed that both the Appellant and deceased were pulling on well till death of the deceased and, therefore, in absence of any other circumstance pointing at the guilty of the Appellant, the order of conviction is unsustainable.