PATAL DUNGDUNG Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life by Mr. K.M. Subudhi, Sessions Judge, Sundergarh, by accepting the case of the prosecution that in the afternoon of the 12th of April, 1980, the appellant committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Sabina to be referred to hereinafter as the deceased) by assaulting her by means of a Budia which resulted in her instantaneous death.

(2.) To bring home the charge, reliance has been placed by the prosecution on eight witnesses of whom Banadik and Chaitu (P. Ws. 2 and 3) have figured as the witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 had testified about an extra judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant in a meeting of the Pachayat after night fall, P.W. 6 was the doctor who had conducted the autopsy and his evidence was that the death was homicidal in nature. This aspect has not been disputed at the Bar. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned trial Judge found that the charge had been esta blished TI

(3.) Mr. A.K. Nayak, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 was not worthy of acceptance and that of P.Ws. t, 3 and 4 with regard to the extrajudicial confession bristled with discrepancies and there was no reason as to why the appellant would blurt out an extrajudicial confession before them. Mr. Sahu, the learned Standing Counsel, bas very fairly submitted that he would not press into service the extrajudicial confession in view of the discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 as to how and in what circumstances, the appellant made a confession and in what precise words and in particular, taking into consideration the fact that the two persons, namely, Sukru and Juakin, who, as alleged, had brought out M.O.I. from the house of the appellant under his direction, has not been examined. The evidence in this behalf could not safely be accepted specially in view of the complete absence of evidence to show as to why the appellant would repose confidence in P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 and what was the reason or motive for the appellant to make an extrajudicial confession. For these reasons, we would exclude the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 with regard to the extrajudicial confession said to have been made by the appellant.