PADAN PRADHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON Jan. 27, 1976, at 1 p.m., a station diary entry (Ext. 11) was made at the Angul Police Station in the district of Dhenkanal on the report of the appellant, who now stands convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to the effect that to feed fat his grudge against Indramani Pradhan (to be described as the deceased hereinafter), he took the deceased to a place by the side of the river Lingara and after tying his hands and legs, dealt successive blows on him by means of a knife and left him on that spot. PW 14, then attached to the police station at Angul as Sub -Inspector of Police, being accompanied by the Assistant Sub - Inspector of Police (PW 12), proceeded to the spot and noticed patches of fresh blood on the ground. The injured Indramani had by than been removed to the hospital for treatment and PW 14 found him lying in a precarious condition. The plain paper first information report (Ext. 15) was drawn up by PW 14 who up the investigation in the course of which the appellant was arrested and taken to the spot and a dagger (MO I), a shirt (MO II) and a pant (MO III), suspected to have stains of blood, were seized by PW 14 on production by the appellant from his cabin. The injured Indrarnani succumbed to the injuries on the same day. In the course of investigation, PW 14 examined a number of witnesses and on 26.3.1976, made over charge of the investigation to the Circle Inspector of Police (PW 13) who took steps for sending the incriminating and other articles for chemical examination and placed a charge -sheet against the appellant who, after commitment, stood trial being charged under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

(2.) TO bring home the charge to the appellant, the prosecution had examined fourteen witnesses. Of them, PWs 1 to 5, 7, 10 and 11, some of whom had been examined as witnesses to the occurrence and some others to prove incriminating movements of and circumstances again the appellant, did not support the case of the prosecution and were cross -examined by the prosecution under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, PW 6, the father of the deceased Indramani, was examined to establish the strained relationship between the appellant and the deceased. His evidence would show the notoriety and extreme bad character of the deceased and his involvement in a number of cases of theft for which he (PW 6) had severed connections with him and his bitter feelings towards the deceased would be exhibited from his conduct in not even going to see his injured son Indramani lying in the hospital and he did not even go when, the dead body was brought nor did he go to the burial ground. This then was the character of the deceased, as deposed to by his father. PW 8 was the Doctor who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Indramani, vide Ext. 7, the post mortem report and she had noticed a number of external injuries and consequent internal injuries and her evidence would undoubtedly establish that the death of Indramani was homicidal in nature. PW 9, a Revenue Inspector, had prepared the spot map (Ext. 9). PWs 12 to 14 were police officers. The appellant, whose case was one of denial and false implication, had not examined any witness in his defence.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge mainly relying on the report (Ext. 11) made by the appellant at the police station characterizing it as an admission and admissible under Section 21 and as a piece of conduct of the appellant admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act coupled with the medical evidence pointing to the conclusion of a homicidal death, recorded the order of conviction. As observed by the learned Sessions Judge, even the evidence of seizure of MOs I to III could also be overlooked on the ground that the seizure had not been testified by the witnesses who were said to be present at the time of the seizure of the articles by PW 14.