ANGADA SUNA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-8-1988 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur convicting the appellant under section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) The facts of the case may he briefly stated thus. The appellant is the husband of the deceased and they were living together prior to the incident. They were woodcutters by profession and used to earn their livelihood by cutting and collecting fuel in the jungle and selling it. It is alleged by the prosecution that. on 16-1-1988 when both the appellant and the deceased had been to Chandali forest behind the campus of Sambalpur University for collecting fuel, the appellant suddenly dealt blows on the cheek and head of the deceased by means of a tangia he was carrying, causing injuries on her person. Thereafter, the appellant left the place, Information was lodged for the incident at the Burla Police Station and P.W.10, the S.I. of Police of Burla Police Station registered a case against the appellant under sections 302/201, I.P.C. and proceeded with the investigation. During the investigation of the case the dead body of the deceased was not traced out, and as such no medical evidence is available on record. The Investigating Officer, P. W. 10, however, accompanied by the appellant under arrest with P.W. 3, a Scientific Officer, D.F.S.L., Sambalpur went to the spot near Chandali hill behind the Sambalpur University campus. It is stated that at the instance of the appellant, the Investigating Officer seized some broken bangles, a bindi and saree said to have belonged to the deceased. The Investigating Officer had sent all these incriminating articles for chemical examination and serological test. He also took steps for recording the confessional statement of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sambalpur. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. The appellant being committed to the Court of Session stood his trial for the offence of murder of the deceased and was eventually found guilty of the offence and convicted thereunder.

(3.) The plea of the appellant at the trial was one of total denial of his complicity in the crime. He has denied to have made any confessional statement before the Magistrate, and he has also denied to have made extra-judicial confession before his father, P.W. 7.