Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 821 (ORI)

Bideshi Pradhan v. State of Orissa

2010-12-01

C.R.DASH, L.MOHAPATRA

body2010
JUDGMENT The present appellant along with three others stood trial for offence punishable under Section 302/201/34 I.P.C. Learned trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted all the co-accused of the charge and convicted the present appellant Bideshi Pradhan under Section 302 I.P.C. and acquitted him of the charge under Section 201 I.P.C. Aforesaid judgment and order of sentence dated 03.07.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T. Case No. 35 of 2000/S.T. Case No. 74 of 2000 D.C. is impugned in this appeal. 2.The prosecution case in short is as follows:- Deceased Landi Pradhan had illicit relationship with Lokanath Pradhan (since acquitted) since long. Later said Lokanath Pradhan refused to accept deceased Landi Pradhan as his wife. On 13.12.1999 deceased Landi Pradhan went to the house of accused Lokanath Pradhan and asked him to marry her. Lokanath Pradhan did not agree. The present appellant Bideshi Pradhan, who happens to be the father of aforesaid Lokanath Pradhan convened a meeting in the village. Nothing could be decided in that meeting and as found from the record of the case, on being asked by P.Ws. 5 and 6, the present appellant took the deceased Landi Pradhan with him to his house after the meeting. On the next day i.e. 14.12.1999 at about 7.00 A.M. the dead body of the deceased Landi Pradhan was found in the kandula field of one Lalamani Pradhan of that village. F.I.R. was lodged by the brother-in-law of the deceased. On the basis of the said F.I.R. the present case was registered, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation four persons including the present appellant was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. The defence plea is one of complete denial. 3.Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses to prove the charge. P.W.1 is the informant, P.W.2 is the father of the deceased, P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased, P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the Ward-Members of the village in whose presence the meeting was convened by the present appellant. P.W.7 is the witness to the seizure, P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the co-villagers, who were also present in the meeting. P.W.10 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination and P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer. 5 and 6 are the Ward-Members of the village in whose presence the meeting was convened by the present appellant. P.W.7 is the witness to the seizure, P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the co-villagers, who were also present in the meeting. P.W.10 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination and P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer. 4.So far as the death of the deceased is concerned, the Medical Officer (P.W.10) has specifically opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation and the death is homicidal in nature. There is no effective cross-examination by the defence so far as the nature of death of the deceased is concerned. Defence also does not dispute the nature of death of the deceased and in view of such fact we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Court below to the effect that death of the deceased was a homicidal death. 5.Coming to the question of the complicity of the present appellant, it is found from the evidence on record that there is no eye witness to the occurrence, dead body of the deceased was found in the Kandula field of Lalamani Pradhan in the morning following next the day of the meeting in the village convened by the present appellant. P.W.9 is a witness, who testified that at about 4.00 A.M. in the morning of the occurrence one Chakra Manahira came and informed him that the accused persons namely the present appellant and his son Lokanath killed the deceased by throttling and they chased him (Chakra Manahira), but he escaped. Aforesaid Chakra Manahira was not examined as a witness. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances to prove the charge against the accused persons including the present appellant:- “(i)That the deceased was in love with the accused Lokanath. (ii)That the deceased entered into the house of the accused persons and stayed there. (iii)That the deceased forced accused Lokanath to marry her but he refused. (iv)That the father of accused Lokanath convened a meeting in the village. (ii)That the deceased entered into the house of the accused persons and stayed there. (iii)That the deceased forced accused Lokanath to marry her but he refused. (iv)That the father of accused Lokanath convened a meeting in the village. (v)That the villagers asked accused Bideshi, father of accused Lokanath to keep the girl in his house in the night and (vi)That on the next day morning she was found dead in the Kandula field of one Lalamani.” Learned trial Court on consideration of the evidence adduced to prove the aforesaid circumstances held the evidence so adduced to be insufficient to prove the circumstances and recorded an order of acquittal in respect of all except the present appellant. So far as the present appellant is concerned, learned trial Court held him guilty on the basis of reasoning that the present appellant without protest took the deceased to his house from the meeting place. It is further reasoned by learned trial Court that as the present appellant took the deceased to his house without protest, it was his duty to look after her safety and as he (appellant) was the person, who was last seen together in the company of the deceased, he is responsible for the murder of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid single circumstance, learned trial Court has returned the finding of guilt so far as the present appellant is concerned and has acquitted other accused persons including co-accused Lokanath. 6.The present appellant is the father of Lokanath, with whom the deceased had the love affair. It was Lokanath, who refused to accept the deceased as his wife. So far as the present appellant is concerned, it is an admitted fact that he took the deceased to his house after the meeting and he did so without any protest. It is the prosecution case that in the night, the deceased stayed in the house of the present appellant and in the next day morning she was found lying dead elsewhere. From the fact that in the night preceding next the date of her death, the deceased was there in the house of the appellant, it cannot further be inferred that it was the appellant alone to whom opportunity of killing the deceased was available. Inference may be otherwise to the effect that other inmates of the house of the appellant might have committed the crime. Inference may be otherwise to the effect that other inmates of the house of the appellant might have committed the crime. 7.Taking into consideration the settled law on the point of proof of guilt of an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the nature of evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution so far as the present appellant is concerned, we are of the view that the circumstance so proved does not unerringly point to the guilt of the present appellant and his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. is therefore, not sustainable in the eye of law. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence recorded thereunder. If the appellant is in custody, he be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed.