ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

54
in a separate house and there was none else in the said house when the
dead body of the deceased was found. Therefore, it was for the appellant to
explain the circumstances under which the deceased met a homicidal death.
According to the learned counsel for the State, the appellant having not
discharged his onus, the order of conviction is justified.
5. We have carefully perused the F.I.R. and the evidence of witnesses
examined in course of trial. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the
occurrence. P.W.1 is a witness to the inquest and turned hostile. P.W.2 is
INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010 ]
step-mother of the appellant and she has stated in her deposition that four to
five days before the date of occurrence, all of them had gone to Puri to
perform the Sradha ceremony of the natural mother of the appellant and in
the morning of the night of occurrence, she was told about the death of the
deceased. She has further stated that they had no connection with the
appellant or deceased after their marriage. P.W.3 is sister of the deceased
and she in her deposition has stated that the appellant and the deceased
had no child and for not being able to beget a child, the deceased was being
tortured by the appellant and the appellant one day came to their house and
informed about the illness of the deceased. When her family members went
to the house of the appellant, they found the deceased lying on the floor of a
room with ligature mark on the neck. Suspecting foul play and on failure of
the appellant to explain as to how ligature mark was there on the neck of the
deceased, the matter was informed to the police. Similar is the evidence of
P.W.4, who is the father of the deceased. The other sister of the deceased,
P.W.5 has supported the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.6 is the Uncle of
the deceased, who has stated that in the morning they were informed about
the death of the deceased and he had been to the house of the appellant to
see the deceased. P.W.7 is another sister of the deceased, who has
corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. Similarly, P.W.8, another uncle
of the deceased has corroborated the evidence of P.W.6. P.W.9, another
sister of the deceased has corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4.
P.W.10 was declared hostile and P.W.11 is the doctor, who conducted
postmortem examination. He was of the opinion that the cause of death was
due to asphyxia by strangulation and it was homicidal in nature. P.Ws.12
and 13 are the Police Officers involved in the inquiry and investigation of the
case.
6. On analysis of the entire evidence, it is established that the appellant
and the deceased were staying separately from their parents. In the morning
of night of occurrence, the appellant went to the house of father of the
deceased and informed regarding illness of the deceased. He stated before
them that the deceased was suffering from loose motion and vomiting. After
getting this information from the appellant, sisters, two uncles and father of
the deceased came to the house of the appellant and found the deceased