KALABATI DEI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Court of Session after accepting the case of the prosecution that in the morning of August 16, 1980, while Susanta Naik (to be described hereinafter as the 'deceased ), the son of P. Ws. 1 and 2, was playing outside the house and their two daughters including P. W. 7 were massaging the head of their mother (P. W. 2) who had been ailing and resting in the house and P. W. 1 had gone to the field, the appellant went to P. W. 2 and asked for a shaving blade and on being told that there was none, asked for a Katari and when P. W. 2 replied that they had no Katari, the appellant picked up an axe (M. O. I. ) belonging to P. Ws. 1 and 2 lying in their house, went out and while holding the tuft of hairs of the deceased by her left hand, cut the neck of the deceased by means of M. O. I. by using her right hand. When the cry of the deceased attracted the attention of P. Ws. 2 and 7 and the other daughter, they went out and saw the appellant in the process of killing the deceased and after a tussle with P. W. 2 with regard to the axe she was holding, the appellant left the axe, collected an earthen Sara which she bad brought and had kept in the premises of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and left the spot. The order of conviction has been based mainly on the evidence of the witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P. Ws, 2 and 7 and the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 6 who had immediately come to the spot and had seen the struggle between the appellant and P. W. 2 when the latter attempted to snatch away M. O. I. and the recovery of a Saree (M. O. Ill) from the person of the appellant which contained human blood, as found on chemical and serological test and the recovery of M. O. I. which contained stains of blood on chemical examination. An extrajudicial confession said to have been made by the appellant has not been relied on having been made in the presence, of the GramaRakhi.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. On a careful consideration of the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 7, the trial Court has accepted it and we need not re -state the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge. The evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 7 that on hearing the cry of the deceased, they went out along with the other sister of P. W. 7 and found the appellant catching hold of the tuft of hairs of the deceased by her left hand and cutting the neck of the deceased by means of M. O. I by using her right hand is clear, cogent and clinching P. W. 2 had immediately informed the Kabiraj (P. W. 8) about the occurrence having taken the deceased to him and P.W. 8 had declared that the child had died. She had also informed her husband (P. W.1) after the occurrence when the latter came on hearing the cry raised on the spot. No doubt, P. W. 7 was a child witness, but her statement had immediately been made available before any possibility of coaching her. Both P. Ws. 2 and 7 had been examined in the course of investigation on the day of occurrence itself. As would be clear from the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 6, they had seen the struggle between the appellant and P. W. 2 regarding the snatching of the axe which the appellant left on the spot and it would be seen from the evidence of P. W. 2 that after the appellant left, P. W. 2 threw M. O. I outside her house.

(3.) THE prosecution had not been able to establish any motive as found by the learned trial Judge, although the suggestion seemed to -be that the appellant had been worshipping Mangala Thakurani for which she wanted human blood to be carried in an earthen Sara brought by her. But as held by the learned trial Judge, this part of the prosecution story has not been established by clear and cogent evidence. The fact, however, remains that the deceased was killed by the appellant by means of M. O. I. Mysterious is the working of the human mind It is not always possible on the part of the prosecution to ascribe any motive, absence of proof of motive is of no consequence if the evidence against an accused is acceptable and reliable.