PRADIP MOHANTY, J & B.K.PATEL, J. JCRA NO.08 OF 2002 (Decided on 22.06.2011) DANDADHARA SAHOO …….. Appellant. .Vrs. STATE OF ORISSA …Respondent. For Appellant - Mr. Gouri Sankar Pani For Respondent - Mr. Soubhagya Ketan Nayak (Addl. Govt. Advocate) PRADIP MOHANTY, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 07.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in S.T. Case No.11/87 of 2000. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the appellant had married the deceased, who was the daughter of the informant (P.W.4), three and half years prior to the incident. At the time of marriage, P.W.4 had given a cash of Rs.15,000/-, gold and silver ornaments and household articles as dowry. Four months after the marriage, due to some difference in the family, the appellant and the deceased left their house and lived in a separate house in the same village. The appellant addicted to liquor and sold all the ornaments, utensils and also the cabin in which he was running his betel shop. Then the appellant started assaulting his wife (deceased) to fetch money from her father. In the evening of the previous day of the occurrence, the appellant assaulted his wife and asked her to bring Rs.1,000/- from her father. On 05.12.1999 at about 9.00 AM, the father of the deceased went to the house of the appellant and pacified the matter. But, on that day (05.12.1999) at about 2.00 PM, the appellant dealt a farsa blow on the neck of the deceased-Rajalaxmi. Getting such information from Santosh Kumar Sahoo (P.W.3), deceased’s father (informant) went to the house of the appellant and found his daughter lying dead with cut injury on her neck and throat. At about 300 PM, the informant (P.W.4) lodged the report at Dasapalla Police Station pursuant to which the case was registered. The investigation was taken up by P.W.10 during the course of which he held inquest over the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination, prepared the spot map and seized the blood stained earth and the sample earth as well as the weapon of offence. Getting V.H.F. message that the appellant surrendered at the police station, the I.O. came there and arrested the appellant. He then sent the appellant for medical examination and collection of nail clippings and blood group. He also seized the full pant of the appellant and ultimately on completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant. 3. The plea of the appellant is one of complete denial of the allegation. His further plea is that Santosh Kumar Sahoo (P.W.3) had illicit relationship with the deceased. On the date of occurrence, when the appellant returned home, he found his wife and P.W.3 sleeping together on a cot. When the appellant shouted, P.W.3 whirled a farsa and when the deceased got up, the farsa struck on her neck and P.W.3 fled away from the spot. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses including the doctor & the I.O. and exhibited twenty documents. The defence examined the appellant himself as D.W.1. 5. Learned Additional Sessions judge, who tried the case, relying on the evidence of the eye witness (P.W.3), the parents of the deceased (P.Ws.4 and 5), the mediator of the marriage (P.W.7), the postmortem doctor (P.W.8) and other incriminating circumstances available on record convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC as well as Section 498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which are to run concurrently. 6. Mr.Pani, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court should not have believed the evidence of the eye witness (P.W.3) in absence of any corroboration and should have acquitted the appellant accepting the version of the defence which is more probable. He further submits that P.Ws.4 and 5 having not reported to the police or to any Bhadralog about the earlier torture meted out to their daughter (deceased), no reliance can be placed on their evidence. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, vehemently contended that the evidence of the ocular witness (P.W.3) is very clear, cogent and trustworthy. He vividly described the role played by the appellant. P.W.4, the father-in-law, and P.W.5, the mother-in-law of the appellant, have specifically stated about the torture meted out to the deceased for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. P.W.8, the doctor who conducted autopsy has clearly corroborated the evidence of the ocular witness. The chemical examination report (Ext.19) also reveals that human blood stains were found from the seized full pant of the appellant. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the court below in convicting the appellant. 8. Perused the L.C.R., more particularly the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, 7 and 8 as well as the chemical examination report (Ext.19) on which reliance has been placed by the trial court for recording the judgment of conviction. P.W.3 is a neighbour of the appellant. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the appellant had a betel shop and he was addicted to liquor. On the day of the occurrence at about 12.00 to 12.30 PM, while he was in his bari side he heard shout of Mami (deceased). Hearing the shout, immediately he rushed to the house of the appellant and saw the appellant sitting over the deceased, who was lying on the ground, and giving blows on her neck by means of a farsa. Being frightened he came out of the house, went to the father-in-law’s house of the appellant and informing the incident to the father of the deceased he lost his sense. Nothing has been elicited from him in cross-examination to demolish his evidence. Rather, in cross-examination he admitted that at the time of occurrence, he and his mother were in the bari side and that the distance between the house of the appellant and the place where they were standing was 20 cubits and that seeing the incident he raised hullah. 2 P.W.4 is the father of the deceased and the informant in this case. He stated that he had given a cash of Rs.15,000/-, gold and silver ornaments and other household articles to the appellant as dowry at the time of marriage of the deceased with the appellant. Four months after the marriage, appellant and the deceased left the house of the appellant’s father. While they were living separately, they used to quarrel at times and he (P.W.4) used to go there to settle the matter. Once appellant demanded a fan through the deceased and he complied the same. Again he demanded a cash of Rs.1,000/- to start a business, but as he had no money with him he gave Rs.500/-. Fifteen days prior to the death of the deceased, appellant had sent her to collect Rs.3000/- from him, but he took the deceased to the house of the appellant and told him that he was unable to comply such demand as he was a daily labourer. He further stated that on the previous day of the occurrence, the appellant asked the deceased to bring Rs.1,000/- from him and as she refused to ask him, the appellant assaulted her. On 05.12.1999 morning, P.W.4 went to the house of the appellant and requested him not to quarrel with his daughter. On that day at about 2.00 PM, he got information from P.W.3 that the appellant dealt farsa blow to his daughter and immediately rushed to the house of the appellant along with his wife. He saw the dead body of the deceased lying near the door of the room of the house of the appellant with cut injury on her neck and throat. He proved the F.I.R. (Ext.2) lodged by him at Daspalla P.S. In cross- examination, nothing has been elicited in favour of the defence. P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased who corroborated the evidence of P.W.4 with regard to demand of dowry and intimation given by P.W.3. She went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased lying inside the room of the house of the appellant with cut injury on her neck and throat. Nothing substantial has been elicited from her in cross-examination. P.W.7 is the mediator in the marriage between the appellant and the deceased. His evidence is that a cash of Rs.15,000/- was given by P.W.4 towards dowry to the appellant. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries. “(i) Two incised wounds on front side of neck ½” length and ½’ x 1” depth. (ii) Incised wound of size 7” x 3½” and skin in apposition ½” above the sterniclido mastoid origin. (iii) Incised wound 7” x 1½” on the left side of the neck.” On dissection he found as follows: “(i) Right plural cavity contained coagulated blood coating the right lungs. (ii) All the chambers of the heart were empty. (iii) All internal organs like lever, spleen and kidney were pale. (iv) Large vessels were empty. 3 (v) Stomach contained 500 grams of partially digested food materials.” He opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The external injury nos.(ii) and (iii) were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. To the query made by the I.O., he opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be possible by the farsa produced before him. 9. The analysis of evidence made above leads to the conclusion that the prosecution through P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 has amply proved that the deceased had married the appellant one year prior to the occurrence. At the time of marriage, there was demand for dowry by the appellant which was complied with by P.W.4. After the marriage was solemnized the appellant demanded further dowry in shape of money from the parents of the deceased and subjected her to cruelty and harassment, as P.W.4 expressed his inability to fulfil the same. The evidence of P.W.3, the sole eye witness, appears to be clear, cogent and trust worthy. He has categorically narrated how appellant committed murder of his own bed partner in a barbaric manner. Soon after the occurrence, the appellant surrendered at the police station and admitted to have killed his wife by giving farsa blow, as is evident from Ext.20 as well as the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.10). From the evidence of the postmortem doctor (P.W.8), it is clearly established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and the injuries found on the body of the deceased were possible by the weapon like farsa produced before him. The chemical examination report (Ext.19) reveals that human blood of ‘B’ group was detected from the full pant of the appellant and to that effect no explanation has been given by the appellant. Under the circumstances, there is hardly any scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the JCRA is dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is upheld. Appeal dismissed. 4