NAKULA CHANDRA AICH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Nakula Chandra Aich has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. of having, on 20th Mar. 1977 at 1 P.M., committed the murder of one Akuli Baral of village Jenapur in the district of Cuttack and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE deceased Akuli Baral was a pan vendor while the appellant is a cycle repairer at the Station Bazar of Jenapur. On 20th Mar. 1977 at about mid -day the appellant visited the temple of the deity Mangala situated by the side of the path leading from the Station Bazar to the village. While, proceeding towards the temple he snatched away an axe from P.W. 4 Menaka Dei. On the way he met the deceased and both of them proceeded towards the temple. The deceased was going ahead of the appellant Suddenly the appellant dealt an axe -blow on the head of the deceased and after he fell down the appellant dealt two blows on his chest as a result of which he died. Thereafter, the appellant ran away with the axe and entered into the tiffin shop of his brother Arjun Aich. P.W. 10 Nakula Rout, a servant of Arjun Aich was present in the shop at that time. The appellant threw away the utensils, tea kettle etc., inside the shop and asked P.W. 10 to get out of the shop and threatened him with assault, if he disobeyed, P.W. 10 came out, and on the advice of P.W. 11 Prafulla Kumar Mohanty, he closed the doors of the shop and locked it. The appellant was kept confined in the room till arrival of the Investigating Police Officer. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 9 Narahari Baral, a Gramarakhi at about 4.30 P.M. The Investigating Officer visited the village at 5 P.M., held inquest over the dead body and despatched it for post -mortem examination. He visited the shop of Arjun Aich where the appellant was kept confined and arrested him. While in custody, the appellant stated before the Investigating Officer that he had concealed the axe inside a coal heap in the shop room and so saying he led the Investigating Officer and the witnesses inside the shop and gave recovery of the axe (M.O. I). On 26.3.1977 the appellant made a judicial confession (Ext. 6). After due investigation, he was charge -sheeted by the police.

(3.) IN order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 18 witnesses of whom P.Ws. 1 and 2 were said to be witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 14 were cited as witnesses to depose about certain circumstances connecting the appellant with the crime. But all these witnesses did not support the prosecution case at the trial and were cross -examined by the Public Prosecutor. The order of conviction is based mainly on the retracted judicial confession of the appellant.