The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of circumstantial evidence and medical evidence to determine the appellant's intention and culpability for the offence under section 302 I.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant having been convicted for commission of offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No.20 of 1999/S.C. No. 92 of 1999 G.D.C.

2. As it appears from the record, P.W.13, the S.I. of Berhampur Town Police Station while investigating into Berhampur Town Police Station U.D. Case No.7 dated 4.10.1998 ascertained during his enquiry that Rajanala Mani, daughter of P.W.7 had married appellant about four years prior to the occurrence. There used to be quarrel between both the husband and wife and the deceased had conceived by the time of occurrence. On 3.10.1998, the appellant and the deceased boarded in Sriram Bhawan Lodge at Berhampur. At about 2 A.M. the appellant informed P.W.5 regarding the health condition of the deceased and requested for shifting the deceased to the hospital and after the deceased was shifted to the hospital she was given some treatment but she expired in the hospital. On getting information from the hospital the aforesaid U.D. case was registered and in course of enquiry it was further found that the deceased was being tortured at the hands of the appellant and the deceased also died a homicidal death. On the basis of plain paper F.I.R. was drawn up by P.W. 13 and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Prosecution in order to establish the charges, examined sixteen witnesses out of whom P.W.7 is the father of the deceased and P.W.5 is the Manager of Sriram Bhawan Lodge where occurrence took place. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are two constables who guarded the dead body of the deceased till post-mortem examination and P.Ws 4 and 6 are the two workers of the lodge who were called after the information with regard to ill health was disclosed. P.W.8 had come to Berhampur to see the deceased along with P.W.7 and P.W.9 is the driver of Kali Mata bus who had given information about the incident to the father of the deceased P.W.7. P.W. 12 is the doctor, who received the deceased for treatment and informed the Police Station about the death of the deceased. P.W.11 is the Executive Magistrate, who had attended the inquest conducted by P.W.16. P.W. 10 is Anr. doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination and P.W. 14 is a witness to the seizure of dowry articles. P.W.15 is one of those persons, at whose instance, marital life of the deceased was restored and P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer.

4. The plea of the appellant is complete denial of the prosecution case. According to him, in the night of occurrence the deceased was suddenly attacked with diarrhea and vomiting for which she had to be taken to the hospital where she died.

The trial Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence available on record specifically relying on the evidence of P.Ws 5, 7 and 10 found the appellant guilty for commission of offence u/s 302 I.P.C. and convicted him thereunder. But the appellant was acquitted of rest of the charges.

5. Shri Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the impugned judgment and order on the ground that in absence of any eye-witness, prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence and therefore, In absence of any evidence completing a chain of circumstances the appellant could not have been convicted for commission of offence u/s 302 I.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the appellant no one had seen what happened between the appellant and the deceased inside the room in the fateful night and only when the deceased started vomiting, the hotel manager P.W.5 was informed and the deceased was taken to the hospital where after some treatment was given to her, but she expired. According to learned counsel even if the evidence of P.W. 10, th