BAIDYANATH MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The convicted prisoner assails the order of conviction recorded against him under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the TCode) sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Samba ipur, after accepting the case of the prosecution that on March 4, 1979, the appellant assaulted his paternal uncle Ramakrushna Majhi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) to death by dealing blows by means of an axe (M.O. I)owing to a land dispute. There was no witness to the occurrence. The order of conviction has been based mainly on the Judicial confession (Ext. 8) and the extra-judicial confession, I all deposed to by a co-villager (P.W. 3) the Ward member of the village (P.W. 5) and the brother of the appellant (P.W. 8). Besides, there was evidence of P.Ws. 3, 5, 7 and 8 to 10 that the appellant was whirling an axe and threatening the villagers to kill if they went near him inside the house of his brother Lokanath (P.W. 8) in whose house the deceased had been done to death. M.Os. I and IV, two axes, with suspected blood-stains, had been recovered and seized from, the house of the appellant and M.O.V. a Dhoti of the appellant, with suspected stains of blood, had also been seized in the course of investigation, as- testified by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 11). There was the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9, the brother and aunt respectively of the appellant, about the strained relationship between the appellant on the one hand and the deceased on the other because of a dispute over a piece of land. The learned Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the evidence, accepted the case of the prosecution and recorded the impugned order of conviction,

(2.) It is not disputed at the Bar that the deceased had died a homicidal death and of this, there was the evidence of the doctor (P.W. V) Who had conducted the autopsy and had noticed four incised wounds on the Person of the deceased which had caused serious internal injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The question for consideration is as to whether the appellant was the author of the crime.

(3.) We may point out at the outset that in his petition of appeal, the appellant has taken a ground that he was insane at the time of occurrence. We have perused the record and the evidence led by the prosecution and the statements made by the appellant before the Magistrate who recorded his confessional statement and before the trial court. There was no material to indicate or even remotely suggest that the appellant was suffering from insanity when he allegedly committed the offence so as to bring his case within the exception provided in section 84 of the Code. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not urged this ground and in our view, rightly so.