RADHA MOHAN NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") stood charged under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "the I.P.C.") allegedly for having committed murder of a ten -years' old girl namely, Snehalata (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). They have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur.

(2.) THE accusation which led to the trial of the accused are to the following effect: On 20.8.1985 between 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. the accused were found in the companion of the deceased who had gone out of the school premises during the recess. Her deadbody was found inside the abandoned kitchen room of Laxminarayan Temple in village Ankoli situated within Berhampur town. The deadbody was detected around at 4.30 p.m. When the father of the deceased learnt about the incident, he want to his house along with others and enquired from his wife as to whether the deceased had returned home. On being told that she had not returned, he went to the temple and found the deadbody. It was noticed that a pair of car -rings which were worn by the deceased were missing. Acting on the report submitted by the father of the deceased, investigation was taken up and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused under section 302/34, I.P.C. since they were last seen with the deceased.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for accused -appellants has urged that allegations against the appellants even if accepted at their face value, do not lead to the irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the appellants. Further, admittedly when P.W. 8 stated to have made recovery of money in the presence of a Constable, evidentiary value of the so -called information loses its legal base. It is also highlighted that two of the so -called eye witnesses arc child witnesses and no credence can be put on their evidence. Learned counsel for State, on the other hand, contends that on an elaborate analysis of evidence, conclusion of guilt of the appellants has been arrived at and therefore, there is no scope for interference in this appeal.