The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof on the accused, and the admissibility of statements of the deceased under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 28th June 2001, passed by the Sessions Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneswar in S.T. Case No. 40 of 1998, convicting the Appellant under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life on each count under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for two years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 4 of the DP Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. By an order dated 26th April 2007, the Appellant was enlarged on bail by this Court during the pendency of the appeal.

3. This Court heard the submissions of Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant and Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant/accused had married the deceased wife, Sanjukta @ Kuni on 12th July, 1993. It is stated that at the time of marriage, there was a demand for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in cash and a television set in dowry from the groom side. A sum of Rs. 12,000/- was paid to the accused before the marriage and a television was given to him at the time of marriage by PW-7, the brother of the deceased.

5. Two male children were born to the couple. On 25th June 1997, while visiting the house of PW-7, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from PW-7 and threatened them with dire consequences if the amount was not paid.

6. According to the prosecution, on the night of 7th July 1997, at around 10.30 p.m. the accused murdered the deceased by means of an iron rod (MO-II) in the entrance room of the house, also being used as a kitchen. He then concealed himself along with his two minor children in the adjacent room by bolting the door from inside.

7. On getting a telephonic message, the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Lingaraj Police Station (PW-19) proceeded to the house of the accused situated in village Gopinathpur along with Sub-Inspector L.D. Mohapatra and Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Purna Chandra Sahoo (PW-18). They found the dead body of the deceased lying on the cot in the entrance room of the house with multiple bleeding injuries. They found the accused hiding in the other room of the house adjacent to the room of occurrence. In response to the call of the Inspector, the accused opened the door and came out of the room. The IIC (PW-19) drew up a plain paper FIR (Ext-1) on his own information and thereupon P.S. Case No. 107 of 1997 was registered.

8. On completion of the investigation, PW-19 submitted a charge sheet. The accused/Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

9. For the prosecution, nineteen witnesses were examined. For the defence, three witnesses were examined. The purpose of examination of DWs. by the accused was to show that he was not present in the house at the time the murder took place and that he was still working in the Jemadevi High School at the relevant time as Peon.

10. On examining the entire evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences abovementioned and proceeded to sentence him as indicated hereinbefore.

11. On behalf of the accused, Mr. Nayak, learned Senior Advocate made the following submissions:

(i) The prosecution had projected PW-8, the nephew of the Appellant as an eye-witness when in fact he was not an eyewitness at all. PW-8 stated that he saw four persons running away from the spot and after coming to the spot and seeing the ghastly occurrence he raised a hullah. PW-8 did not mention the presence of the accused at all.

(ii) The evidence of the Headmaster (DW-1) and other DWs. clearly showed that till 9.45 a.m. on the alleged date of occurrence, the Appellant was in the school whereas PW-8 at 9.30 a.m. saw four persons running away