MADKAMI BAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted under S. 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of Padiami Ganga (to be described hereinafter as 'the deceased') on June 11, 1980 in village Pujariguda in the district of Koraput by shooting the deceased by means of an arrow (M.O.I.) when the latter challenged him as to why he had cultivated the land of Padiami Sanu (P.W. 1), his uncle, which had already been redeemed. To bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses of whom P.W. 1 had testified about the dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased naming the appellant as his assailant and P.Ws. 4 and 6 were said to be the witnesses to the occurrence. Of them, P.W. 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and he was put leading questions by it under S. 154 of the Evidence Act. P.W. 6 had deposed that he had seen the appellant shooting an arrow at the deceased. There was the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 5) who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and his evidence was that death was homicidal in nature. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case mainly on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 6 and recorded an order of conviction.

(2.) Mr. Panda, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 6 was not worthy of credence and that of P.Ws. 2 and 3, far from supporting the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to the dying declaration, would demolish it and therefore, the order of conviction cannot be sustained. Mr. Panigrahi, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has, however, submitted that there was no reason to discard the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 6 and the order of conviction is well-founded on the basis of their evidence supported by the medical evidence and the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 apart from the falsity of the defence case put forward by the appellant in his statement at the trial that the arrow of the deceased had pierced into his chest when he fell down under a Salap tree.

(3.) It is not disputed that the deceased had died a homicidal death. Regard being had to the nature of the external and internal injuries and the evidence of the doctor, it would be reasonable to hold that the shooting of an arrow had caused his death and the theory of the defence that the arrow had pierced into the chest of the deceased accidentally could not be accepted. Falsity of the defence version, however, would not establish the prosecution case and can only be an additional link if there be other evidence pointing to the guilt of an accused person.