INDRA KIRSANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal assails the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore under Section 302, I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1994 directing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE skeletal picture of the prosecution story as portrayed in the lower Court judgment is as follows : Informant Kandra Kirsani, Late Birsa Kirsani and the deceased Mangala Kirsani were three brothers. But the informant Kandra Kirsani was living in village Upparputa whereas Birsa and Mangala were living in separate houses in village Jhariaguda which was about 1/2 Kms. away from the village Upparputa. Birsa died 10 years before the date of occurrence leaving his wife Muni and three sons including the appellant. After the death of Birsa his other brother Mangala kept Muni as his wife. On 2.6.1993 Wednesday at about evening time P.W.2 followed by P.W.3 came to the informant's house and reported that appellant had informed them to have killed Mahgala Kirsani with an axe sometime back. On receipt of such information, the informant along with others went to village Jhariaguda and noticed the deceased was lying dead on the verandah of his house with several bleeding injuries on different parts of his body. On the following day at about 8.30 P.M. the informant verbally explained the incident at the Out -post of Mundiguda and it was reduced to writing and thereafter it was treated as F.I.R. vide Ext. 1. On the basis of the said F.I.R. Station Diary No. 36 dated 3.6.1993 was entered whereupon investigation was started. Simultaneously, the A.S.I., Mundiguda Out -post sent the report for registration of the case to Mudulipada Police Station. During investigation, the O.I.C., Mudulipada visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body, arrested the appellant, despatched the dead body for post mortem examination, sent the weapon of offence and other incriminating materials for Serological test and after completion of investigation, placed charge -sheet against the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C.

(3.) THERE has been no eye witness to the incident. The prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence. Three circumstances were noticed by the trial Court to connect the appellant with the crime.