State Of Odisha vs Dilip Das

Misc. Case No.130 of 2011

For the reasons stated, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the CRLLP is condoned

CRLLP No.94 of 2011

The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17th February, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case No.101 of 2010 acquitting the Opposite Party accused of the offences under section 498-A, 302 and 201 of the IPC. The accused was charged with having committed the murder of his wife on 12th April, 2010 by pressing a fridge on her only because she had availed a loan from the Mahila Samiti without his consent.

The deceased and accused were married for over twenty years when the incident took place. They had a son. The F.I.R was lodged on the basis of the statement of the elder brother of the deceased, who stated that on 12th April, 2010 at about 7 am, he received an information that the deceased had died as a result of the fridge falling upon her.

The FI.R. stated how the accused took her first to the Rajasthan Seva Sadan and thereafter, to the IGH, Rourkela for treatment. However, the deceased succumbed to her injuries. The informant and his relations performed the last rites of the deceased. It was only subsequently that the informant learnt of the role of the accused in committing the murder. It was claimed that the accused made an extra judicial confession before co-villagers PWs.1, 2 and 3.

The trial Court noticed how the extra judicial confession was in fact a weak piece of evidence, which required independent corroboration. What could not be satisfactorily explained was the conduct of the accused in accompanying the deceased to the hospital for treatment and taking her from one hospital to the other. The voluntariness of the so-called confession by the accused before PWs 1 to 3 was doubted by the trial Court.

This being not a case of direct evidence but circumstantial evidence, it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove the extra judicial confession satisfactorily by independent corroboration. This was unable to be done by the prosecution. Even during the cremation of the deceased, no doubt was raised by the informant and his wife. There was also no evidence that soon prior to the death, the deceased was subjected to any cruelty by the accused.

Having carefully examined the entire evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State, this Court is unable to  come  to  a  conclusion  different  from  that  reached  by  the  trial Court. The impugned judgment of the trial Court could not be said to suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference. No grounds have been made out for grant of leave to appeal.

The CRLLP is dismissed as such.

………………………………