p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.6 of 2008 (From the judgment and order dated 11.10.2007 passed by learned Adhoc. Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T No. 8/75 of 2006) Hara Mallik … Appellant -versus- State of Odisha … Respondent Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Appellant : Ms. T.Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, A.S.C. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA _________________________________________________________________ Date of Hearing-09.07.2026 Date of Judgment- 23.07.2026 ____________________________________________________________________________ Sashikanta Mishra, J. The appellant faced trial in Session Trial No. 8/75 of 2006 in the Court of Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore for committing the offence under Section 302. Being convicted for the said offence vide p. 2 judgment dated 11.10.2007, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rupees two thousand, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows: The deceased, Kamala Mallik was the third daughter of one Laxman Mallik of village Tentei in Balasore district. She was given in marriage to the accused- appellant in 2004 as per Hindu rites and customs. The couple resided happily for some days. Thereafter, quarrels erupted between them, mainly because the accused was a lazy person and was given to gambling and did not earn anything. As a result, the couple used to spend their days in abject poverty. The deceased was also nine months pregnant. On 24.07.2005, the deceased asked the accused to find work and be engaged but the accused assaulted her and threatened to kill her. The deceased came to her maternal home at about 8.30 am and informed her parents. Thereafter, she left for the matrimonial home with some firewood and rice. At about 1.30 P.M., her family p. 3 members heard that the deceased was dead and her dead body was hanging by means of her saree. Hearing this, her father Laxman Mallik along with son Ajaya Mallik, co- villager Kailash Parida and others went there and saw that the accused had assaulted the deceased out of anger and killed her and thereafter hung her dead body by means of a saree to give it the colour of suicide. Laxman Mallik reported the matter after reaching Soro Police Station basing on which, P.S. Case No. 135 dated 24.07.2005 was registered under Section 302 of IPC, followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. 3. The accused took the plea of denial. 4. To prove its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. Defence did not adduce any evidence. 5. After analyzing the evidence on record, the trial Court, found that the accused had brutally assaulted the deceased specifically targeting her pregnant belly which resulted in separation of the placenta from the uterus. This p. 4 caused intense pain, bleeding and cardiac arrest. The accused thereafter hung the dead body from the roof to give it the colour of suicide. The trial Court found that the prosecution case was fully proved and therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner already stated hereinbefore. 6. Heard Ms. T. Sinha, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned ASC for the State. 7. Ms. Sinha would argue that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence but the circumstances projected by it did not form a complete chain for which, the impugned order of conviction cannot be sustained. She alternatively argues that even accepting the prosecution case as laid, the act of the accused cannot be treated as murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the accused committed the act in a fit of anger without any premeditation or planning. Page 5 of 10 8. Per contra, Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi would submit that the evidence adduced by the prosecution establishes a complete chain pointing the finger of guilt at the accused. The accused did not give any explanation whatsoever for the unnatural death of the deceased. On the contrary, the evidence reveals that he mercilessly assaulted the deceased. She also argues that none of the exceptions provided under Section 300 IPC are attracted for which the case is nothing but murder. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record carefully. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. However, discovery of the dead body from the house of the accused is not disputed and, in any case, is proved from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely, P.W.s 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. These witnesses have all stated to have seen the dead body of the deceased hanging from the roof by means of a saree with marks of injury on her body. The autopsy surgeon P.W.10 in his examination stated as follows: p. 6 “The injuries found on the body were; 1) There is a subcutaneous haematoma of size 4" × 3" on the left side of the abdomen at the level of the umbilicus. 2) One subcutaneous haematoma of size 2" × 2" on the right side of the abdomen on the right hypochondriac. 3) One subcutaneous haematoma on the left side of the chest just below the breast, extending up to the hypochondriac of size 3" × 3”. 4) There is one abrasion of size 1 cm × 1.5 cm on the right great toe dorsal aspect. All the above mentioned injuries are ante-mortem in nature. On dissection of the interior it contained a dead male baby of term size. The placenta was separated from uterus and uterus contained a lot of blood. The cause of death might have been due to sudden cardiac arrest which might have been due to a heavy blow on her pregnant abdomen and caused the placenta separation and the intense pain causing the cardiac arrest.” He clearly stated that the cause of death could be sudden cardiac arrest caused due to heavy blow on her pregnant abdomen resulting in placenta separation and intense pain causing cardiac arrest. 10. Two things are apparent-firstly, death is homicidal in nature and secondly, it was caused because of severe assault on the pregnant abdomen. Defence has not really disputed the nature of death and in any case, we are ourselves satisfied from the above evidence. This by itself, however, does not prove that the accused had committed the murder of his wife. The finger of suspicion turns towards the accused only when we consider the evidence of p. 7 prosecution witnesses that he was given to drinking and gambling, which was naturally objected to by his wife. There is clear, unchallenged evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 that on the date of occurrence, the deceased had come to her maternal home in the morning and narrated that because of her objection to his drinking and gambling, she was beaten by her husband. Thereafter, she was given rice and fuel wood and was persuaded to go back to her house. Thereafter, she was found to have died in circumstances already discussed. There is no dispute that the accused and the deceased were the only persons living in their house. The accused has not given any explanation as to how his wife met with such gruesome death nor even suggested that someone else might have committed the crime. In the circumstances in which the dead body was discovered, the onus was heavy on the accused to submit a plausible explanation for the death of his wife but he did not do so. 11. Another important aspect is the fact that though the dead body was found in a hanging condition yet death p. 8 was not due to hanging but cardiac arrest caused by intense pain resulting from the blows given to her abdomen by means of a lathi. Significantly, the accused while in police custody gave recovery of the lathi. The irresistible conclusion to be drawn from the above facts is that the accused having killed the deceased made an attempt to cover up his act by hanging the dead body from the roof with a saree to give it the colour of suicide. 12. We have found the evidence on record fully credible and acceptable and have therefore, concurred with the trial Court in its finding that the accused caused the death of the deceased. 13. As to the alternative argument advanced by Ms. Sinha that it is not a case of murder but culpable homicidal not amounting to murder, we are not inclined to accept the same for the following reasons. (a) Even if it is to be accepted that the accused was driven by anger and committed the assault, the nature and the site of the injury can only lead to the conclusion that the accused had p. 9 the intention of killing the deceased. We have already discussed the medical evidence which shows the brutality on the part of the accused to assault his own pregnant wife by inflicting blows with a lathi on her abdomen. In fact, the blows were so severe that the placenta was separated from the uterus causing intense pain leading further to cardiac arrest. (b) There is nothing on record to suggest that the incident had occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel. On the contrary, the evidence clearly shows that the accused had assaulted the deceased on the same morning due to which she had visited her parents. The act of the accused can only be described as a continuation of what he had started in the morning that day. We are thus satisfied that the act was most cruel and diabolical. His act caused not only the death of his wife but also that of his unborn child in the p. 10 womb, which was 9 months old. In a way, it can also be held to be a case of double murder. 14. For the above reasons, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the argument advanced by Ms. Sinha. On the contrary, having gone through the impugned judgment and the findings recorded therein we are persuaded to fully concur with it. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal so as to be persuaded to interfere. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and is therefore, dismissed. The appellant be taken to custody forthwith to serve the remaining part of the sentence. His bail bonds be cancelled. .......................................... Sashikanta Mishra, J. Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. I agree. …........................................ (Manash Ranjan Pathak,J.) High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. 23rd July, 2026/ Deepak