BISIKESAN RANGULI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Keonjhar in C.T. No. 19 of 2002, has preferred this appeal from Jail. The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.11.2000 a written report was lodged by the informant (P.W. 1) before the O.I.C., Gunupur Police Station alleging therein that on the previous day, i.e., on a Monday (20.11.2000) at about 7.00 P.M., his wife - Ahalya Nagabansa (P.W. 11) sent her daughter - Shyamala (deceased), who was aged about 8 years to bring betel from the betel shop of Ghasi Mali of Brahmin Sahi. But as his daughter did not return to home, he and P.W. 11 along with others searched for her in the relative house, but could not trace her out. On the following morning at about 6.30 A.M., the informant came to know from one Jamuna Nagabansa of his Sahi that a girl was lying dead in a half -constructed house situated in between Brahmin Sahi and Kachera Sahi. After hearing this, the informant and his wife (P.W. 11) along with others went to the spot and found their daughter -Shyamala lying dead in the husk house in a half -constructed house. Thereafter, P.W. 1 came to the police station and lodged a report stating therein that some unknown person has committed murder of his daughter and the dead body was lying in a half -constructed house. On receipt of the said report, the police registered the case. The O.I.C. investigated the matter, made inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for Post -Mortem Examination. Thereafter, collected samples of earth, blood stained earth from the spot and seized wearing apparels of the deceased. The O.I.C. also called the Scientific Officer and police sniffer dog with his Master. Ultimately, after apprehending the accused, the O.I.C. examined him and sent the material object for Chemical Examination. After receipt of the Chemical Examination report, the O.I.C. submitted charge sheet against the accused -appellant under Section 302, IPC. The plea of the appellant is one of complete denial.

(2.) THE prosecution in order to prove the charge, examined 17 witnesses including the Doctor and two Executive Magistrates and exhibited 18 documents including Chemical Examination Report and Post -Mortem Examination Report. The defence has examined one witness and exhibited one document, i.e., report of the Dog Master. On completion of trial, the trial court convicted the accused -appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, IPC basing upon the extra -judicial confession made before the witnesses, last -seen theory, Chemical Examination report and the evidences of P.W. 12 and P.W. 15 before whom the demonstration made by the appellant was recorded.

(3.) MR . Zafarulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently contended that the accused made the extra -judicial confession at two different places, once before P.W. 2, the father of an Advocate, when the accused went to approach his son for his bail, and second time before P.W. 5, who was working in the bus stand as a Helper and known to the appellant. P.W. 3 is a witness to the last -seen theory, who is a resident of that area who last saw both the appellant and deceased moving together. P.W. 12 and P.W. 15 are the Executive Magistrates before whom the appellant voluntarily demonstrated how he committed the crime. The Chemical Examination Report reveals that a patch human blood was detected from his half -pant and no explanation has been given by the appellant how human blood was detected from his wearing apparels. Therefore, there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial court.