High Court dismissed the criminal appeal against conviction and sentencing for murder, holding that the appellant unsubstantially claimed poisoning as motive without examining witnesses to prove the defence. The premature release order remains unaffected.
The criminal appeal was dismissed. The T.C.R. was sent back to the court below for execution considerations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
J CRLA No.37 of 2005
None appears on behalf of the appellant when the matter is called.
It is seen that on earlier date of listing none had appeared for the appellant.
Sk. Zafarulla, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State is present.
We have perused the report of the Superintendent District Jail, Sundargarh vide letter No. 14/JIs dated 02.01.2021. The Superintendent District Jail has intimated the Court that the convict-Dusti @ Yudhistir Kisan, S/o. Sukha Kisan has already been released prematurely on 09.07.2020 as per the order No. IVJ172/2019/628/L dated 07.07.2020 of the Government of Odisha, Law Department, Bhubaneswar.
We have carefully examined the evidences available on record and the impugned judgment. The appellant while being examined at the time of framing of charge admitted that he has killed his wife but claimed to be tried, on the plea that he took such a step since the deceased has tried to kill him by poisoning during the night of occurrence. It is also borne out from the impugned judgment as well as the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the Court that he killed his wife because she has given something in water during the night, as a result of which he became ill.
In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined nine witnesses. P.W.1 and P.W. 2 have stated about the occurrence in their evidences but have not cross-examined.
Moreover, the defence plea has not been established in this case by the appellant. He has not examined any witnesses on his behalf to establish the plea taken by him. So, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of judgment of conviction and order of sentence in this case.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
However, this order shall not be construed to affect in any way the premature release of the petitioner by order of the State Government.
Send back the T.C.R. to the learned Court below forthwith.
S.K. Mishra, J
Savitri Ratho, J.
Rohit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution defence was established by the appellant.
Whether the lower court's finding of conviction and order of sentence should be interfered with.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dusti @ Yudhistir Kisan
State
S.K. Mishra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
