The duty of the prosecution to establish the homicidal nature of death in a murder case and the requirement for clear findings and reliable evidence to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

1. The sole convict/appellant-Dhruba Charan Das assails his conviction under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the Penal Code" for brevity) recorded by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-III), Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 28 of 2000 (arising out of G.R. Case No. 839 of 1998 of the court of the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack, corresponding to Niali P.S. Case No. 93 of 1998. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Penal Code. No separate sentence has been passed under Section 498A of the Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, bereft of unnecessary details, may be enumerated as follows:-

The deceased-Kamini Das (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased" for brevity) was given in marriage to the appellant about 12 years prior to her death. However, their marriage was a troubled one as it is alleged that the appellant was having relationship with another woman. For that he was torturing the deceased. Several settlements were made by the Bhadraloks. But, thing did not improve. On 26.08.1998 the appellant assaulted the deceased and tore her blouse and at about 2.00 P.M., P.W. 4, the informant (Akshya Kumar Rout) got information from his father that the deceased had died. So, he went to the house of the accused and heard from the neighbors and his nephew P.W. 1 (Ayasa Kanta Das) that the accused/appellant had assaulted Kamini (deceased) by means of an iron rod and then hung her. Suspecting foul play, he lodged the report.

On receipt of the written report, Sri. Raghunath Sahu, A.S.I. of Police, Niali Police Station (P.W. 13) took up investigation of the case, as the O.I.C., Niali Police Station was absent. The said witness examined the witnesses; deputed a Constable to guard the dead body at the spot; held inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 27.08.1998 and sent the dead body for Postmortem Examination to the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack; and made seizures. He handed over the charge of the investigation to P.W. 14 (Jagatbandhu Rai), the S.I. of Police, Niali Police Station who also conducted part of the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 of the Penal Code.

3. In course of trial, the appellant took the plea of denial of the allegations made against him. He further took the specific plea that the deceased had committed suicide as his brother-in-law (P.W. 4) had taken a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and did not return the same and the appellant was defamed by his brother-in-law and others of having affair with another lady, the deceased committed suicide.

4. To substantiate its claim, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses; exhibited nine documents, but did not exhibit any material object. The prosecution in the instant case relies on the evidences of 5 witnesses examined by it. P.W. 4-Akshya Kumar Rout is the informant, he happens to be the brother of the deceased; P.W. 1-Ayaskanta Das is the son of the appellant and the deceased and was aged 8 years at the time of occurrence; P.W. 12-Dr. Prasanna Kumar Mohanty has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased; P.W. 11-Dr. Bhagirathi Barik had given opinion on the rope seized by the investigating officer in this case and P.W. 13-Raghunath Sahu is the A.S.I. of Police, Niali Police Station who carried out the first part of the investigation in this case. Rest of the witnesses are either formal witnesses or the witnesses who proved the marriage between the appellant and the deceased or witnesses to seizures.

The defence in this case examined one witness on its behalf i.e. D.W. 1-Shankar Dash to establish that there was good relationship between the appellant and the deceased, and that the informant-P.W. 4 has taken a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the appellant and did not pay the same.

5. Basing mainly on the evidence of these witnesses, learn