DINABANDHU TANTI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails the order of conviction recorded by the Court of Session against him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life after accepting the case of the prosecution that in the evening of October 18, 1979, the appellant committed the murder of Jema Bewa (here in after referred to as the 'deceased') by shooting her by means of an arrow (M.O.II) which pierced into her chest and resulted in her death. To bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses of whom Raghunath Tanti (P.W. 1), son of the deceased, was the first informant and the prosecution had relied on his evidence and that of his wife Gurubari Dei (P.W. 2) with regard to a dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased on the spot naming the appellant as her assailant, P.Ws.3 and 5, two co -villagers of P.W. 1 had testified about an extra judicial confession made by the appellant. In addition, the evidence of the Investigating Officer was that consequent upon the statement made by the appellant, the bow in two pieces (M.O.III) had been recovered from the backyard of the house of the appellant.

(2.) IT has not been disputed before us that the deceased bad died a homicidal death. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. S.K. Padhi has challenged the evidence adduced against the appellant as unreliable and unacceptable and according to him, the order of conviction could not have been recorded. Mr. Rath, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, has pressed into service the dying declaration of the deceased and the extra judicial confession of the appellant and he finds no infirmity in the order of conviction.

(3.) COMING first to the dying declaration, it must be kept in mind, as has been observed by the Supreme Court in AIR 1976 S.C. 1994 K. Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. v. The Public Prosecutor, that the dying declaration is undoubtedly admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act and not being a statement on oath so that its truth could be tested by cross -examination, the Courts have to apply the strictest scrutiny and the closest circumspection to the statement before acting upon it.