KANDRU MURMU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and the judgment is as follows: Accused faced trial for the offence under Section 302 IPC on the allegation of committing murder of his wife by severing her head on the suspicion of practising witchcraft. The occurrence took place on 29.10.1994. At about 2.30 P.M. on that day accused was found moving towards the police station with the severed head of his wife and a bloodstained axe. On the way he made extra judicial confession before the witnesses and thereafter in the police station deposited the head and the axe. The aforesaid aspect put the Investigating Officer into action and thereafter without probing much he completed the investigation citing few people as witnesses to the occurrence and few to prove extra judicial confession. The seized weapon and' the blood stained wearing apparels of the accused together with the blood stained apparels of the deceased were sent for chemical analysis and the confirming report -Exts. 10 and 11 was received from the Science Laboratory. In course of trial accused took plea of denial and prosecution examined nine witnesses to substantiate the charge against the accused. On assessment of evidence of witnesses, learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada delivered the impugned judgment on 25.06.1997 in S.T. Case No. 38 of 1995 recording guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment (wrongly mentioned as rigorous imprisonment for life).

(2.) WHILE assailing the order of conviction learned Counsel for the appellant argues that learned Sessions Judge took note of absence of any evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime but only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence that accused produced the severed head and the axe in the Police Station and that he did not deny to the questions put in course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and that his wearing apparels were stained with human blood of same group as that of the deceased, accused was held guilty and convicted in the above indicated manner. Learned Counsel for the appellant further argues that on perusal of evidence on record no direct or circumstantial evidence is available to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and under such circumstance the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. - -

(3.) WE see on record that neither the witnesses to the occurrence viz. PWs 3 and 7 nor the witness to the extra judicial confession, viz. PWs. 4 and 5 supported the prosecution case. Evidence of P.W. No. 2 that accused made an extra -judicial confession before him at the police station was found to be an afterthought inasmuch as no such statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Under such circumstances, the trial Court was constrained to record the findings that direct substantial evidence on the above aspect are nexus so as to substantiate the charge.