HIKOKA SIBANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE convict Appellant has preferred this appeal from the prison against the judgment and order dated 11.1.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput in Sessions Case No. 368 of 1994 convicting him under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing to undergo R.I. for life for committing murder of one Maniaka Pagu.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the brother of the deceased, namely, Maniaka Lachhana (P.W. 2) lodged an oral report at Sashikhal police out -post at about 2 a.m. in the night of 23/24.6.1964 stating that while he was returning with his wife to his village from Mandanguiguda, at about 4.30 p.m. on 23.6.94, they met the accused -appellant, who is the brother -in -law of his elder brother (deceased), near Hitibara Dangar and the accused stated before them that he has finished his brother (deceased) and stating this the accused went away. Thereafter, P.W. 2 along with his wife, after travelling for a short distance found his elder brother lying on the road. There was bleeding injury on the neck and he was still bleeding. He, thereafter, went to the Ward Member and told him about the incident. At that time, the wife of the deceased who is the sister of the accused -appellant, told P.W. 2 that the accused has killed his elder brother. They went to the spot and found the deceased dead. Thereafter, they went to the Sarpanch who also expressed that the accused came to him short while ago and told him that he killed the deceased. The Sarpanch also advised him to report the matter to police.

(3.) TO prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and has relied upon the extra judicial confession stated to have been made by the accused before the informant (P.W. 2) i.e. the brother of the deceased, P.W. 3 who is the wife of the deceased and the sister of the accused and the Sarpanch who is stated to be dead. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of P.W. 4, who is the Grama Rakhi, regarding production of the weapon of offence i.e. the Kati by the accused. There was no eye -witness to the occurrence. It is, therefore, necessary to scrutinize the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses to find out as to whether the so called extra judicial confession made by the Appellant before P. Ws. 2 & 3 coupled with the evidence of Grama Rakhi (P.W. 4) can be held to be sufficient to conclude that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant regarding commission of the alleged offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.