BACHAN BHOI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has assailed the order dated 9.8.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir (Camp at Sonepur) in Sessions Case No. 23/17 of 1995 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE essential facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows : While the deceased Bali Pradhan was returning from the canal after taking bath with a bell -metal Gadu, soap, towel etc., the appellant inflicted 4 to 5 cut blows with an axe on her neck in a narrow lane behind the house of the appellant, as a result of which 3/4th portion of the neck found flapping and she fell down on the ground dead. It has been disclosed that preceding the ghastly incident, there was absolutely no altercation, nor provocation by the deceased. The ghastly incident was witnessed by one Hadu Bhoi, who informed about it to Ghanashyam Pradhan, the de facto complainant. After receiving information, Ghanashyam Pradhan went to Dunguripali Police Station and submitted FIR on the basis of which a police case bearing No. 73/94 was registered and thereafter the investigation was directed to proceed with.

(3.) THE prosecution had examined 7 witnesses to prove its case, whereas the defence did not examine any witness in its support. P.W.1's evidence assumes significance. He states that the appellant while in police custody admitted his guilt to have killed the deceased and said that he concealed the axe, the weapon of offence and led the police and witnesses to his house and gave recovery of the axe. He further stated that he heard from his wife that the appellant had killed the wife of Jadu Pradhan (the deceased). He proceeded towards the house of Jadu Pradhan and on the way found the dead -body of Bali Pradhan lying in front of the house of the accused. His evidence further certified that he had seen the cut injuries at the back and also the back side neck of the deceased Bali Pradhan. P.W. 1's testimony further clarified that one Garjan Bhoi was present when the appellant admitted his guilt and disclosed about concealing the axe in his house and so saying, the appellant led the police and gave recovery of the axe (M.O.I.) which was seized under Ext. 1 in his presence. The learned defence counsel has severely criticised the evidence by stating that had Sananda Pandey (P.W. 1) witnessed the seizure, then, why was he left out and not examined under Section 164, Cr.P.C. to strengthen the case of recovery and seizure of the axe (M.O.I.). Mr. Mohanty, the learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that since it has been already proved through P.W. 1 and the I.O., it is, therefore, not obligatory to examine all other prosecution witnesses to prove the discovery. But it is seen that the recovery of the weapon had taken place in the night. P.W. 4 is stated to be an eye witness to the incident. He deposed that on 23.12.1994 at 9 A.M. while Bali was returning from canal after taking her bath, in a narrow lane, behind his house, the appellant attacked her with an axe (Tangia). P.W. 4 has deposed that the appellant inflicted 4 or 5 cut blows on the neck of the deceased as a result of which the head of Bali sagged down. When he shouted that the appellant committed murder of the deceased, hearing the same, Debadhi Budek, Jatan Bariha, Ghanashyam Pradhan immediately reached at the spot followed by other villagers. P.W. 1 had also identified the M.O.I, held by the appellant at the time of incident. The deceased was wearing a violet colour saree (M.O.IX). The accused appellant was wearing Panjabi, white Koria Lungi which were examined by the serologist who found existance of human blood of 'B' origin.