KUNA ALIAS SANJAYA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) BOTH the appeals have been preferred by each of the accused persons as against the order of conviction recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baripada on 21.6.2001 in S.T. Case No. 48/38 of 2000 arising out of G.R. Case No. 167 of 2000 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Baripada.

(3.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, in the night of 19/20.2.2000 a video show was organized in the village and while accused Pravati and the deceased were in their house, their three children had gone to witness the video show. Accused Sanjay and P.W.1 had also gone to the said Video show. At about 10.00 to 10.30 P.M., accused Sanjaya and P.W.1 came out from video show at the instance of the accused. On the way to the house, accused Sanjaya purchased liquor and consumed the same. On his insistence, P.W.1 also consumed some liquor. When they reached at their place of residence, accused Pravati and the deceased were returning to their house after attending the call of nature. Accused Pravati entered into the room ahead of deceased Santosh. When the deceased Santosh entered into the room simultaneously accused entered there and applied physical force as a result of which Santosh fell down and thereafter sitting on his chest, accused Sanjaya throttled his neck. At that time accused Pravati put her hand on the mouth of the deceased to gag it. Because of the aforesaid overt act, Santosh died at the spot and thereafter, to give it colour of suicide the dead body was hung on the nearby premises by fixing a rope on the rafter of the roof of a shed. In the night when the children returned to the house accused Pravati remaining inside the house being closed from outside allowed the children to enter into the house by climbing over the bamboo fence (wall) and explained to them that their father had gone somewhere after locking the door from outside. One of the elder brother of the deceased (P.W.12) on the morning wanted to handover the key of the sweet meat stall and for that purpose he came up to house of the deceased and accused Pravati responded to him from inside the house stating that the deceased had gone outside. Then that witness went to his house, brought a torch light and found the door of the house (living room) of the deceased being locked from outside and thereafter on focus of his torch, he could observed the dead body of the deceased was hanging on the other premises. Thereafter the matter was reported to Police who registered a case of un -natural death and A.S.I, of Police (P.W.14) conducted the inquiry. In course of that inquiry P.Ws. 6 and 8 on being intimated by P.W.1 informed the inquiring officer about the murder of the deceased. On receipt of that information on 21.2.2000; the A.S.I, of Police went to the hospital and ascertained from the doctor who conducted the post -mortem examination on the dead body that deceased suffered homicidal death. Thereafter he examined the witnesses and being prima facie satisfied about the existence of offence of murder reported to his superior Police Officer and thereafter he lodged an F.I.R. On the basis of the said information and written report (Ext. 4), further investigation was undertaken and ultimately charge sheet was filed. After commitment of the case, trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C.