In the case of Shiba Dandasena V. State of Odisha (JCRLA No. 14 of 2011), the present appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 10th February 2009 of the Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No.42 of 2007, in which the appellant ,Shiba Dandasena is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 309 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 309 of IPC for murdering his wife. The two sentences were meant to be read simultaneously. It is important to note right away that the Appellant was extended on bail by this Court while the appeal was pending by the order of May 2, 2018, as he had already served more than eleven years in prison at that point. His appeal of pleading not guilty was dismissed as he was found guilty in the matter and was directed to surrender, by the High Court of Orissa.
Facts: The dead Hema was married to the appellant, a native of the village of Goda-bhanja, and they had a son together. The appellant had doubts about his wife’s loyalty. Shiba went to their field early on November 13, 2006, with his wife and son to reap the paddy. He struck the dead in the back of the neck with a cut blow from his axe at 11 am as she was reaping paddy. She passed away right there and then. He attempted suicide by hanging himself from the neighbouring Neem tree with a rope out of fear for the repercussions. But when his mother got there, she yelled out loud. His cousins showed up there when they heard her crying. Cousin Chaitanya Dandasena scaled the tree, severed the rope, and carried him down. He received water, and they were able to save him. The cops eventually arrived after being called and informed. The Appellant was promptly detained and taken to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed, the Appellant pleaded not guilty, and stated that he went to the jungle to get firewood on the pertinent day in the morning and didn’t come back until 4 o’clock in the afternoon. Upon his return, he discovered his wife lying dead with a slash to her body. He added that the locals had chased him so they could attack. So, out of terror and in an effort to save himself, he scaled the neem tree. On an analysis of the entire evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict and sentence him in the manner indicated hereinbefore. After which he appealed against the judgement in the High Court of Orissa.
Judgement: In this instance, the prosecution established the following facts, which it claimed formed a continuous chain and unmistakably demonstrated the accused’s guilt: (I) The appellant believed his wife wasn’t being faithful. (ii) It was evident from the evidence and the Appellant’s mother’s statement that the Appellant had gone to the field that morning with his wife and young boy to reap paddy. The appellant was alone with his wife when he returned with his son, left him with her mother, and ran back to the field. As a result, the deceased was last seen with the appellant before she passed away. (iii) The victim was killed intentionally. (iv) Shiba’s mother and cousins frequently mentioned discovering the suspect hanging from the neem tree and severing the rope that would have pulled him down (v) According to the results of the chemical analysis, there was human blood on the Tangia that was discovered there. (vi) The Appellant’s claim of having an alibi was completely unfounded and unsupported by reliable evidence.
Since every other element of the case has been amply established and, when considered collectively, all of them point to the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it is impossible for anyone else to have committed the crime. The Court is convinced that the prosecution has been able to prove each of the links in the sequence of events, which create a continuous chain and unmistakably point to the appellant’s culpability and no one else, for the reasons listed above. As a result, the appeal is denied and the trial court’s decision is upheld and the bail bond of the accused is cancelled and he is directed to surrender.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SNIGDHA DUBEY