DHARMANANDA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the sole Appellant Dharmananda Sahoo is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.1.1995 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack convicting the Appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him thereunder to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 12.6.1993 at about 1.00 P.M. the Appellant himself appeared at Jagatpur Police Station and lodged an information stating, inter alia, that on the previous day (11.6.1993) after selling a plot of land, he had kept an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - in his almirah for marriage of his daughter. That very evening (11.6.1993) at about 7.00 P.M., his son Rabi @ Ramakanta' Sahoo (since deceased), challenged the Appellant and his wife for having sold the land and further stated that the marriage of the Appellant's daughter could not be held and forcibly took away the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000/ - by breaking the lock of the almirah. The deceased returned home in the next morning at about 7.00 A.M. When the Appellant and other members of the family requested the deceased to return the money, which he had taken away forcibly, the deceased did not listen to the request and threatened the Appellant with dire consequences. This fact was later on narrated by the Appellant to some of the village elders as mentioned in the F.I.R. and the Appellant requested them to recover the said amount of Rs. 10,000/ - from the deceased. On being so requested by the Appellant, the village elders came and requested the deceased to return the money to his father. But the deceased scolded those people in filthy language. Thereupon the Appellant handed over a piece of rope to the village elders, who thereafter tied the hands and legs of the deceased, whereafter the Appellant himself assaulted the deceased with a crowbar with a view to break his hands and legs. The other persons present there also assaulted the deceased with lathi as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The Appellant and his wife untied the deceased, sprinkled water on his face and yet the deceased died. In this connection, the Appellant further stated in the F.I.R. that the deceased was involved in a series of criminal cases and in connection with such criminal cases, he had been in prison a number of times. He was living separately from the Appellant.

(3.) ALL the alleged eye -witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely not iota of evidence against the Appellant except what appears in the F.I.R. lodged by the Appellant himself recorded by the concerned police officer of Jagatpur Police Station. The statement in the F.I.R. reveals complete acknowledgement of guilt by the Appellant and therefore, it amounted to confession recorded by a police officer. As is well known, such confession recorded by a police officer or made even in presence of a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, as a matter of fact, there is absolutely no of evidence. We do not like to enter into any further discussion of the materials on record except what is stated hereunder.