SAKU MAJHI Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has been further convicted under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence has been awarded.

(2.) THE prosecution case may be stated in brief. The deceased is the father 's sister of the accused. On 7 -7 -1963, the only son of the accused died and he suspected the deceased as having practised witchcraft. On 8 -7 -1963, the deceased and Mundi Majhiani (p. w. 6) worked as labourers in the field of Fagu Majhi (p.w. 2) at a distance of about 2 miles from their village. They were returning together in the evening. Suddenly the accused came out, while they were passing through a dense forest, and caught hold of the neck of the deceased who raised an alarm that she was being assaulted. P.W. 6 ran away out of fear and reported the matter to Raimat Majhiani (p.w. 7), the wife of the village Padhan (p.w. 8). Subsequently the accused made an extra -judicial confession before P.W. 8 that he killed the deceased as his only son died the previous day on account of the witchcraft practised by the deceased. The accused also admitted his guilt before the Punches on 11 -7 -1963. On 12 -7 -1963, the village Chowkidar (p.w. 4) heard of the murder by the accused from P.W. 8. On 13 -7 -1903, P.W. 4 reported to the Writer Constable (p.w. 3) of Eisoi Police Station that the deceased was missing from the village. The accused was not mentioned as the author of the crime in that report. On the basis of the report P.W. 3 prepared Station Diary Entry (ext. 1). While in police custody the accused admitted before the A.S.I (p. w. 10) that he threw the dead body of the deceased into a cave near Chandra hill. He led the A.S.I. to the cave wherefrom the dead body was discovered. The doctor (p.w. 5) held the post -mortem examination on 16 -7 -1963 and found no injury on the dead body as it was in a highly decomposed state and could not give any reasons as to the cause of death. On 15 -7 -1963, the A.S.I. sent a report to the Officer -in -charge which was treated as the F.I.R. (ext. 9).

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge discarded the extra judicial confession of the accused before p.ws. 8 and 9. His finding on this score has not been assailed before us by the learned Government Advocate. The extra -judicial confession was rightly ruled out from consideration.