PATI SOURA AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two Appellants have been convicted under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to R.I. for 5 years by the learned Sessions Judge of Koraput.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 4 -9 -1966 these two Appellants intentionally caused the death of one Bayang Saura by striking him with a Tangia Bayang was a resident of village Kutiting with the Puttasing Police Station in the district of Koraput. P.w. 1 Ati happens to be his son. About a year before the incident one day he was informed by p.w. 2 to take food for his father to the place in the forest where the latter occasionally lived. P.w. 1 with his wife took food for his father to the said place where the father had raised a hut to watch the crops grown by him on reaching the hut p.w. 1 saw the dead body of his father lying there with injuries. p.w. 1 returned to the village and informed his uncles. Then he along with the village watchman went and lodged F.I.R. at the Police Station. According to the prosecution case the deceased had married the sister of Appellant No. 1 Patio Appellant No. 2 is the nephew of Patio It is stated that the day previous to the occurrence the deceased dragged away to the forest another sister of Appellant No. 1, namely, Lasa Saurani (p.w. 7) and kept her in his hut on the hill. Therefore, both the Appellants went there and killed the deceased. The defence was a denial of the entire occurrence.

(3.) IT is not disputed that apart from the confessional statements of the two Appellants recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure there is no direct evidence to implicate the Appellants in the present case on 8 -9 -1966, these two Appellants appeared before the learned S.D. M., Gunupur and their statements under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. Appellant No. 1 stated that the deceased forcibly took his grown -up sister to a neighbouring hillock. Appellant No. 2 saw this and told Appellant No. 1 in the evening of that Saturday about the same. The two Appellants went to the hillock on Sunday morning and found that both of them were sitting together. There upon Appellant No. 1 called upon his sister to come along with him and return to their house. The deceased immediately rushed with a Tangia at them and threw down Appellant No. 2 and aimed the Tangia at him, to give a blow. When Appellant No. 1 saw that the deceased was about to kill Appellant No. 2 he took away the Tangia from him and gave two blows to the deceased near the ear. As a result the deceased fell down. Thereafter ' Appellant No. 2 got up and gave a blow on the stomach. Almost to the same effect is also the statement of Appellant No. 2.