BASANTA KONHAR ALIAS BABULA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above appeal, Appellant has challenged to the judgment and order dated 27.07.1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No. 7 of 1996, whereby he has been convicted under Sections 302/201, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for committing murder of his co -villager Kiabala Konhar and causing disappearance of his dead body.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that appellant and deceased Kiabala Konhar are co -villagers. Rajkishore Konhar is the son of the deceased. Some years prior to the occurrence, Appellant had snatched away a gold 'Mali' from the neck of the daughter -in -law of the deceased. A Punch was convened in the village, where the appellant admitted the above fact. In the said Panchayat, Appellant also agreed to compensate Kiabala Konhar with the cost of the 'Mali', i.e., Rs. 3,000/ -(rupees three thousand), as the same was disposed of by him. Accordingly the appellant paid Rs. 2,500/ - (rupees two thousand -five hundred). A couple of months before the occurrence, appellant apprehending that deceased Kiabala is practising witchcraft on him, convened a meeting in the village with a view to drive him out of the village, but failed. On the date of occurrence, i.e, on 17.09.1995 at about 4 p.m., in an isolated place near river Salunki, the appellant finding that deceased alone was proceeding towards Kuchilagada, caused his murder by inflicting several axe -blows on him. With a view to cause disappearance of evidence, he tied a napkin on the left foot of the deceased, dragged the dead body to the river -bed and threw it into the river Salunki. Thereafter he appeared at Tikabali Police -Station at about 6.30 p.m., made a statement before the A.S.I. of Police, namely Gopal Chandra Mohapatra (P.W.7) about the murder of Kiabala committed by him and produced the weapon of offence, i.e., the axe, marked M.O. -I. P.W.7 reduced the statement of the appellant to writing, vide Station Diary Entry No. 345, dated 17.09.1995 (Ext.7/1) and seized the axe and the blood stained 'Dhoti' of the appellant, marked M.O. -II. Immediately thereafter investigation was undertaken, in course of which police along with the appellant went to the house of the deceased and, on the disclosure made by the appellant, son of the deceased and some villagers accompanied the police to the place where Kiabala was murdered and the place where the dead body was thrown. Police seized blood -stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence and recovered the dead body from the river. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination and thereafter the wearing apparels of the deceased, marked M.Os. III, IV, V and VIII, were seized. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. P.W. 1 is a witness to the seizure of M.Os. I and II. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased and he deposed about the post -occurrence and relating to recovery of the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are two co -villagers. They also witnessed recovery of the dead body and inquest. P.W. 5 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination and proved the post mortem report Ext.2, and his opinion report on M.O. -I marked Ext.4 and the requisition thereof being Ext.3. P.Ws.6 to 9 are police officials who got information of the crime and conducted investigation. On the direction of the trial Court one witness was examined to state about the village Punch, and he has been described as P.W. 10. We observe that he should have been described as Court's witness No. 1. Be that as it may, including the above noted documents, prosecution proved and exhibited documents, vide Exts. 1 to 16. Defence did not choose to examine any witness in support of its plea.