CHUDIAMAL JAM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Death for dowry owing to murderous assault on Premalata (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) by her husband Chudiamal (appellant No. 1), her mother-in law Sonadevi (appellant No.2) and Dalchand Jam, a co-accused person who also stood trial with the appellants, during the night of August 23/24, 1980 at village Tikiri in the district of Koraput by throttling her to death and then by throwing the dead body into the well in the backyard of Bhimsen Jam, was the case presented by the prosecution in the Court of Session in which the appellants and the co-accused person stood charged under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) As alleged by the prosecution, married to the appellant Chudiamal in 1974 and murdered by him and his mother Sonadevi in 1980, the deceased had all along been ill-treated by the appellants as her father (P. W. 6) had not been able to satisfy the lust of the appellants for dowry from time to time for which the deceased used to come in and go out of the house of the appellants in the State of Haryana and then at Tikiri and go away to the house of her parents in Haryana. A number of letters (Ext. 5 series) had been addressed by the deceased to her father complaining of ill- treatment at the hands of the appellants and apprehending danger to her life within a short time as had been mentioned, in particular, in Ext. 5/2 which was said to be the last letter addressed by the deceased to her father before her life ended. On August 24, 1980, the appellant Chudiamal lodged a report about the missing of the deceased at the Tikiri Police Out-post for which an entry (Ext. 27) was made in the Missing Register at the out-post and while this appellant and his co-villagers had been searching for the deceased, her dead body was found floating inside the well of Bhimscn Jam, the maternal uncle of the appellant Chudiamal residing in the same village, with a piece of rope (M.O.I) around her neck and with ornaments on her person. This information was conveyed by the appellant Chudiamal to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 15) in a report (Ext. 14) and the police officer took up the inquiry after making an unnatural death first information report (Ext. 14/1) and by making a station diary entry (Ext. 26) P.W. 15 took steps for taking out the dead body from the well and it was taken out and sent for post-mortem examination by the doctor (P.W. 7) in charge of the hospital at Kasipur whose report was Ext. 9 and this doctor was not certain -as to whether death was homicidal or suiddal in nature. For this the help of P.W. 8, Professor and Head of the Posts - Graduate Department of Forensk Medicine and Toxicolgy of the M.K.C.G. Medical College at Berhampur, was taken and on the basis of the data mentioned in the postmortem report (Ext. 9) by P.W. 7 who had conducted the autopsy, P.W. 8 gave his report (Ext. 11) indicating that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. In the course of investigation first by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 15) and then by P.W. 16 the Officer-in-charge of the Kasipur Police Station, a number of witnesses were examined and on its completion, a charge-sheet was placed against the appellants and the co- accused person and their prosecution followed.

(3.) The prosecution had, besides relying on the evidence .of P.W. 8 to substantiate its theory that the case was one of homicide, placed reliance on the evidence of Jagannath Nayak, a co-villager of the appellants at Tikri, about a quarrel in the house of the appellants after night fall on August 23, 1980 besides other evidence to be co-accussed herein after with regard to the strained relationship between the appellants on the one hand and the deceased on the other anti her letter (Ext. 5 series). The main evidence on which reliance had been placed was that of Gourhari Behera (P.W. 10) who had spoken about the suspicious movements of the appellants and the co-accused person during the fateful night around 2 a.m. moving in the direction of the house of the appellants and thisT witness had heard the sound of something falling into the well of Bhimsen and that of Simanchal Behera (P.W. 11) who had testified about the two appellants and the co-accused person holding a bag and entering into the backyard of Bhimsen and about his hearing a sound of something falling into the well of Bhimsen shortly thereafter.