ARJUNA PRADHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal from Dhenkanal district jail Arjuna Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question the legality of his conviction under S. 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the 'I.P.C.') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal. The accused faced trial on the accusation that he killed his mother Jamuna Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased') on 17-4-86.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the two brothers namely Khageswar Pradhan and Bisha Pradhan (P.Ws. 1 and 3 respectively) are sons of one Babu Pradhan. All of them lived in the same premises though Khageswar and Bisha lived separately from their father after partition. On the date of occurrence after taking the night meal, Khageswar slept on the verandah while his wife Kadila (P.W. 2) and his son slept in the house. Babu and the deceased slept on the same verandah intervened by a wall. The accused slept on the court-yard 3 to 4 cubits away from the verandah. P.W. 2 got up in the night and saw that the accused was running away after killing the deceased with an axe. She shouted for help. On hearing the shout, Khageswar got up and rushed to catch hold of the accused but could not catch hold of him. Bisha also got up. A chase was given by both Khaga and Bisha and they went to village Kantanali along with others. They asked one Bikram Master who told them that the accused had not come there and they returned to the village and kept a watch over the dead body of the deceased. The next morning they discovered that the deceased was sleeping in a buffalo shed, and brought him and asked him in presence of the villagers as to why he killed his mother. The accused confessed to have killed his mother as he wanted to kill her. Khageswar went to the Police Station at Pallahara and lodged a first information report on the basis of the first information report, investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was submitted. The plea of the accused was a complete denial of the occurrence.

(3.) The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses to further its case. The evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 was pressed into service to prove the prosecution case. The extrajudicial confession made by the accused before these witnesses was highlighted and the conduct of the accused in running away was also stated to be of sequence to connect the accused with the crime. The fact that P.W. 2 has seen the accused running away from the place of the occurrence was also indicated to be of vital importance. A statement under S.164 of the Criminal P.C. (for short, the 'Code') was recorded by the learned S.D.J.M., Pallahara before whom the accused confessed to have killed the deceased. On consideration of the evidence of the witnesses and the confession of the accused made before the learned S.D.J.M., the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and convicted him under S. 302, IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.