MANGAL MUNDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 31 1 1996 passed by Shri P. B. Patnaik, Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S. T. No. 467/44 of 1994 convicting him under section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

(2.) PROSECUTION case runs as follows:

(3.) IN order to bring home the charge against the appellant, prosecution has examined nine witnesses, of whom p. w. 1 is the informant, p. w. 7 is the investigating officer, p. ws. 2 and 3 are the two labourers working under p. w. 1 and are post occurrence witnesses, p. w. 4 is a witness to the seizure before whom the appellant allegedly made extra judicial confession, but he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, p. w. 5 is the medical officer who conducted the post mortem examination of the deadbody of the deceased and submitted his report Ext, 5 and also Ext. 6, his opinion, after examination of the weapon of offence (M. O. I), p. w. 6 was the A. S. I. of Mangalabag Police Station, Cuttack who had conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased and sent the same for post mortem examination. P. w. 8 is the younger brother of the appellant and brother in law of the deceased who has stated about the relationship of the appellant and the deceased and about their quarrel. P. w. 9 is the wife of p. w. 8 who did not support the prosecution case and has turned hostile and has been cross prosecution case and has turned hostile and has been cross examined by the prosecution. The defence has examined none.