The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, asserting no grave and sudden provocation was present and emphasizing the reliability of the child witness alongside corroborative medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant Raikishore Jena faced trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jajpur in C.T. Case No.27 of 2009/11 of 2009 for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that on 25^th September 2008 at about 1.30 p.m. in village Kuansha under Mangalpur police station in the district of Jajpur, he committed murder of his wife Benga @ Sinia Jena (hereafter ‘the deceased’).

The learned trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 27.11.2009, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for six months more.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 25.09.2008 at about noon, the appellant Raikishore Jena returned home from his cultivable land and asked the deceased to serve him food. The deceased told him to wait for some time, as the cooking was in process. Hearing this, the appellant became furious and entered inside the house and brought out a ‘Katuri’ and assaulted the deceased by dealing successive blows on her neck, face, head, ear, etc., as a result the deceased died at the spot. The Ward Member of mouza Kuansha namely Seshadev Jena (P.W.10) lodged F.I.R. before the Officer-in-charge, Mangalpur police station at the spot which was scribed by the Sarpanch, on the basis of which Mangalpur P.S. Case No.91 dated 25.09.2008 was registered under section 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant.

Prasant Kumar Majhi (P.W.13), the Officer-in-Charge of Mangalpur P.S., after registering the case, took up the investigation. He visited the spot where he noticed the dead body of the deceased, held inquest over the dead body, prepared the inquest report vide Ext.2 and then the dead body was sent to the District Headquarters Hospital, Jajpur for post-mortem examination. P.W.13 seized the blood-stained ‘Katuri’ (M.O.I), which was used as the weapon of offence so also the blood- stained earth and the blood-stained saree of the deceased in presence of the witnesses from the spot as per the seizure list Ext.1/2. The appellant was arrested on 25.09.2008 and forwarded to Court on the next day. The I.O. made a query to the doctor (P.W.9), who conducted post-mortem examination, by sending the weapon of offence (M.O.I) regarding possibility of the injuries sustained by the deceased by such weapon and the opinion was given in affirmative. The exhibits were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar through Court for expert opinion and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under section 302 of the I.P.C.

Framing of Charge

3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session where the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant as aforesaid and since he refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt.

Prosecution Witnesses, Exhibits & Material Objects

4. During course of the trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses.

P.W.1 Bhaskar Jena is a co-villager of both the appellant and he stated that after the occurrence, the police had taken his signature on a blank paper and he denied of having any knowledge about the incident.

P.W.2 Basudev Jena is a co-villager of the appellant and he stated that after the occurrence, the police had been to the village where it conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and in his presence,