BHOGUN SABAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life by the Court of Session after acceptance of the case of the prosecution that on October 27, 1979 at village Kadameri in the district of Kalahandi, the Appellant, who had previous quarrels and dispute with Chamaru Majhi (to be referred to hereinafter as 'the deceased'), committed his murder by means of an axe (M.O. I). This occurrence had been witnessed by P.W. 1, a teacher in the village and P.W. 2, the sister of the deceased. The Appellant had allegedly made an extrajudicial confession before P.W. 4 when he had carried M.O. I with him stained with blood. After commission of the murder, the Appellant took to his heels and was absconding. Nearly two days thereafter, he was apprehended with M.O. I in his possession which was seized in the course of investigation started on the basis of the first information report lodged by P.W. 3. A Lungi (M.O. II) with suspected stains of blood had been seized from the possession of the Appellant. The trial court has accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 with regard to the assault on the person of the deceased by the Appellant and that of P.W. 4 as regards the extrajudicial confession made by the Appellant. It has also relied on the recovery of M.O. I with stains of blood from the possession of the Appellant and the fact of his absconding from the village for more than a day.

(2.) MR . R.K. Mohanty, appearing for the Appellant, has contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 is not worthy of credence and if their evidence is taken out of consideration, there is no other evidence which can connect the Appellant with the commission of the offence of murder. The learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the order of conviction is well -founded on the evidence on record.

(3.) THERE was the evidence of P.W. 3 that all was not well between the Appellant and the deceased and they had previous quarrels and dispute for which the matter had been reported to the police authorities. This had also been stated by D.W. 2. This, according to the prosecution, constituted the motive for the commission of the offence.