PATU NAIK TUNG Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is from the Circle Jail, Baripada by Patu Naik alias Tung (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calling in question the legality of his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('I.P.C.' for short) and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada.

(2.) FILTERING out the unnecessary details, prosecution case is as follows: Accused is responsible for the death of one Nenga and his wife Dubki. The accused had a suspicion that the death of his mother and two children was due to the witch -craft practised by the deceased persons. On 17 -9 -1986 morning he had lost a child. After deceased Nenga came out of the room where the ailing child was being treated, the child died. At about 9 or 9.30 a.m. on the very day Nenga was called by the accused and after he went to the latter's house, he was assaulted with a Tangia by the accused as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries and fell dead into the drain of the court -yard. Thereafter, the accused went and informed certain persons, who were cutting paddy on the land of one Surukuni Sethi (P.W. 4), about the death of the child and asked them to stop their work as a meeting was to be held about the cause of death. After stopping work, deceased Dubki, Surukuni (P.W. 4) and Raghu (P.W.5) and others were going towards the village. The accused who was walking behind Dubki, suddenly caught hold of her hair, felled her down on the ground, snatched the sickle from her hands and cut her throat with the sickle. Dubki died instantaneously. The accused, thereafter, taking a cycle, proceeded towards the police station and on the way he was giving out that he had killed the two. He reached the Bisoi Police Station at about 10 A.M. and he gave the information that he had killed Nenga and Dubki. On the basis of such information, a station diary entry was made and investigation taken up. During the investigation certain seizures were made by the Officer -in -Charge (P.W.17). After making certain seizures, the I.O. proceeded to the spot for verification of the information given by the accused. During the inquiry, the statement of the son of the deceased persons was recorded and the same was treated as the First Information Report. But, since earlier information had been given by the accused about the commission of the cognizable offence, on the basis of which the station diary entry was made, the subsequent statement of the son of the deceased persons was held to be inadmissible in terms of section 162, Cr.P.C. The motive for the crime, as indicated above, was the suspicion of the accused about the practising of the witch -craft by the deceased couple. The accused pleaded complete denial of the allegations.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the accused pleaded that there is no acceptable First Information Report on the basis of which it can be said that investigation was undertaken. It is, however, accepted that -the station diary entry was brought on record as Ext. 13 which showed that the law was set in to motion on the basis of the information given by the accused himself. Though the confession of the accused so far as the killings are concerned may be inadmissible in evidence, the conduct and other relevant circumstances can be taken in evidence and pressed into service by the prosecution for establishing its case. The other plea which was stressed with some amount of vehemence is that the accused was in an agitated state of mind when he lost near and dear ones in quick succession. If the case of prosecution that he suspected the deceased couple to be responsible for the calamities which befell him is accepted, the case comes within the ambit of exception I of section 300, I.P.C. Additionally it is pleaded that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the death of deceased Nenga being circumstantial in nature, the same should have been proved by a complete chain of circumstances and in the absence of acceptable evidence, it should not have been held that the accused is responsible for the death of Nenga. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the materials on record clearly establish the guilt of the accused, and rule out the applicability of exception of section 300, I.P.C.