BHAJA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted for the offence of murder and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dhenkanal.

(2.) P .W. 1, the local Grama Rakshi, lodged First Information Report at about 9 a.m. on 26.2.1974 with the Officer -incharge of the Sadar Police Station at Dhenkanal that between 12 midnight and 1 a.m. in the previous night while he was sleeping on the verandah of his house in the village, one Lochan Pradhan asked him to come running as they had caught a thief. Lochan led him to a Mahul tree near about. He found that there were several cut injuries on Gundicha and blood was oozing out. His waist had been tied by a rope to a small tree near about. Several persons were present at the occurrence. On enquiry, the informant was told by Gundicha that he had stolen a she -goat from accused Bhaja Pradhan's cattle shed and was going away. Bhaja ran from behind and gave him cut injuries. As a result of it, he dropped the goat which was then in a big jute bag. By daybreak, Gundicha succumbed to his injuries. After due investigation, the appellant was sent up for trial for murdering the deceased Gundicha by means of a tangia (M.O. I).

(3.) THERE is no eye -witness to the occurrence and prosecution mainly relies upon the dying declaration as also the extra -judicial confession supported by P.W. 1 and the production of the tangia M.O. I, the lathi M.O. II by the appellant and giving discovery of the rope M.O. III from beneath the thatch heap and the circumstantial evidence of recovery of a she -goat from a gunny bag. Reliance has also been placed on human blood having been found on the lathi, the lungi and the rope. The learned trial Judge accepted P.W. 1 to be a disinterested and reliable witness and, therefore, also accepted the dying declaration. He also accepted the extra -judicial confession by rejecting the defence stand that Grama Rakshi being a police officer, Section 25 of the Evidence Act would not permit the alleged confessional statement of the appellant to be received in evidence. The learned trial Judge next examined the claim of right of private defence of property and was not prepared to uphold the claim of right of private defence. Accordingly he found the appellant guilty of murder and convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him in the manner already indicated.