JAGAMOHAN BARLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court of Session has held it established an the basis of the evidence of two witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P, Ws. 5 and 6, supported by the medical evidence, while discarding that of another (P. W. 1), coupled with an extrajudicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before P. W. 2, that after a sudden quarrel during the night of November 20. 1979, the appellant, working as a Mazdoor with many others including Albert Tope alias Topen (to be described hereinafter as 'the deceased ), killed the deceased by means of a sickle (M. O. I) when the latter came to the house of Michael Eka with whom the appellant had been staying along with Ratan Munda (P. W. 6). having left the house or the deceased where he had previously been staying after quarrels with him. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,'the Code') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment fox life.

(2.) IT is not disputed at the Bar that the deceased had died a homicidal death. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Rath has submitted that the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 6 was not worthy of credence and appellant's alleged statement made before P. W. 2 admitting to have killed the deceased could not legally be construed as an extrajudicial confession. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that if the case of the prosecution is accepted by this Court, the offence would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder coming under the purview of Section 304, Part II of the Code as Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section 300 of the Code would be applicable to the facts of the case. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the order of conviction is well -founded.

(3.) WE have been taken through the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and who had been staying in the same but with the appellant and had testified as to how the deceased came, picked up a quarrel and challenged the appellant as to what he could do, whereupon the appellant picked up a and dealt a number of blows on the person of the deceased who was carried in an injured condition for medical treatment and he (sic) to the injuries. P. Ws. 5 and 6 were natural and competent witnesses and were expected to be on the scene. There was no reason as to why they would join hands to falsely implicate a companion of theirs who had been staying with them. Their evidence found assurance from the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 9) who had conducted the autopsy on the person of the deceased and had noticed as many as nine incised wounds on different parts of his body. The medical evidence would indicate that most part of the assault had been directed on vital parts, such as, the band and the neck. The injuries, according to the doctor, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and could be caused by M. O.I. Although the evidence was not quite clear as to whether M. O. I. was the weapon of attack, the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 6 would establish that the appellant had assaulted the deceased to death by means of a sickle.