JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Athamallik in C.T.(S) Case No.11 of 2020 arising out of G.R. Case No.413 of 2019 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (S.D.J.M.), Athamallik.

By the same, the Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of offence under section-302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short called as ‘the IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- with the default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. The prosecution case is that on 19.08.2019 in the forenoon, one Anek Bagha, who is the sister’s son of Pitambar Bhoi came and informed Pitambar that Pitambar’s sister (Raswswari) has been murdered by her husband namely, Sesadev Kudei (accused). Pitambar getting this information from Anek, came to the house of his sister and saw his sister lying dead on a cot with severe cut injuries on her head. The villagers present there on being asked told that the accused had murdered his wife namely, Raseswari by means of spade. On that day around 12.30 pm, Pitambar (Informant-P.W.1) lodged a written report with the Inspector-In-Charge (IIC), Athamallik Police Station. Receiving the said report, the IIC, treated the same as F.I.R.(Ext.6) and upon registration of the case took up investigation.

The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.18), then examined the Informant and proceeded to the spot. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.1). He then issued requisition for postmortem examination of the dead body. He also seized some incriminating materials at the spot in presence of witnesses and examined other witnesses. The incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of investigation, Final Form was submitted, placing the accused to face the Trial for commission of offence under section-302/498-A/494 of the IPC.

3. The learned SDJM, having received, Final Form as above took cognizance of said offences and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the said offences against the accused.

4. In the Trial, the prosecution in total has examined nineteen (19) witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 is the Informant, who happens to be the brother of the deceased and P.W.13 is the nephew of P.W.1, who had first informed P.W.1 about the incident. The person who have scribed the F.I.R.(Ext.6) has been examined as P.W.12; whereas P.Ws. 2 and 11 are the witnesses to the inquest. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the witnesses to the seizure said to have been made at the instance of the accused pursuant to his statement while in police custody in leading them to the place of keeping of those articles. The first wife of the accused has been examined as P.W.11. The Doctor who had conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased has come to the witness box as P.W.16 whereas the I.O. has examined himself as P.W.18. The prosecution besides leading the evidence by examining the above witnesses has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 19. The details of the same being given at the foot of the judgment of the Trial Court, this judgment is not burdened by noting those again since those will be referred to as per the numbering as and when would be so required in course of our discussion to follow.

5. The defence plea is that of complete denial. The accused has however not led any evidence despite being provided with the opportunity.

6. The Trial Court upon examination of the evidence and their evaluation at its level has held that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge under section-302 of the IPC as against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading clear, cogent and