KHETRA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Kandhamal -Boudh, Phulbani in S.T. No.87 of 1998 has preferred this appeal against the said order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 22.12.1996 in the morning the deceased with his brother informant -P.W.1 went to the hillock side for bringing charcoal. After returning in the afternoon at about 2.00 P.M., the deceased left home telling that he was going to Kutipada to consume liquor. However, he did not return in the night. On the following morning P.W.8, a resident of village Kutipada came and called P.W.1 to go to his locality saying that he would disclose something to him. Accordingly, P.W.1 -the informant accompanied P.W.8 to the house of P.W.2. It is alleged that P.W.2 disclosed to P.W.1 that in the preceding night, the appellant came to his house and made extra judicial confession saying that he had committed murder of a person and the dead body was lying in his house. P.W.1 apprised some of the co -villagers of such information and along with them came to the house of the appellant. Finding the door of the house chained from outside, appellant's wife was called and she opened the door. Entering into the house P. W.1 and other noticed marks of blood leading from the entrance room to the kitchen and the dead body of the deceased was found lying inside the kitchen. On the basis of oral narration of the occurrence at Balliguda Police Station, P.W.9 the Officer -in -Charge prepared the F.I.R., registered the case and took up investigation. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet under Section 302 of I.P.C. was submitted against the appellant.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to prove the charge examined ten witnesses. Out of whom P.W.1 is the informant and brother of the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 4 are witnesses to the extra judicial confession made before them by the appellant. P.W.3 is a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. P.W.5 is a police constable and P.W.6 is the A.S.1. of police. P.W. 7 is the Doctor, who had collected appellant's nail clippings. P.W.8 is a witness to the seizure of weapon of offence 'PA -URANI MUNDA' M.O.I., a wooden handle by which paddy is crushed at the instance of the appellant. P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.10 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. No defence evidence was adduced.