PITABAS PENTIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Jail Criminal Appeal, the appellant assails the judgment and order dated 8.3.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korapaut -Jeypore in Sessions Case No.292 of 1994 convicting the accused -appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) SUCCULENTLY stated the prosecution case is that the mother of the accused and the wife of the deceased were two sisters. Since the wife of the accused expired leaving behind two minor children, he requested the deceased to take care of those children and in lieu thereof he assured to work under him, to which the deceased agreed and accordingly the accused with her two children lived in the house of the deceased. On 6.5.1994 the accused went to village Giriliguda to witness Nacha, so, in the next morning the deceased advised him not to spend money unnecessarily by seeing Nacha. On the following morning, while the deceased was returning home after taking bath, on the way, the accused inflicted four successive axe blows on his chest, both sides of neck and back causing his instantaneous death. P.W.2 the eyewitness to the occurrence, after seeing the incident rushed to the house of the deceased and informed about the occurrence to P.W.1, the son of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1, the son of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with P.Ws 3 and 4 went to the Kundra Police Station and orally reported the incident to the O.I.C. (P.W.7) who reduced the same into writing. As the allegation contained in the FIR revealed a cognizable case, P.W.7 registered the case and took up investigation. In course of investigation he seized the Axe (M.O.I) on being produced by the accused before him at the Police Station, held inquest over the dead body, sent it to Kotpad hospital for autopsy, seized the wearing apparels of the accused as well as the deceased, examined the witnesses, visited the spot, arrested the accused, forwarded him to Court and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused, who stood trial thereunder before the Court of Sessions Judge, Koraput -Jeypore. The plea of the accused is complete denial of his involvement in the crime. He also denied to have produced the axe before P.W.7.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , P.W.2 is the only eye witness to the occurrence. So the case mainly rests on the evidence of this solitary witness. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.2 that on the date of occurrence, while the deceased was coming from the side of the village tank, the accused who was going with an axe in the opposite direction inflicted one axe blow on his chest another blow on backside of the neck and the third blow on his back, for which he fell down and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. P.W.2 immediately rushed to the house of the deceased and informed the incident to his family members including his son, P.W.1. During cross examination this witness admitted that he had not specifically stated before the I.O. that the accused inflicted three axe blows on the chest, neck and back of the deceased, but he narrated the incident to him as to how the accused killed the deceased. The I.O. also stated in his evidence that P.W.2 had not specifically stated before him that accused assaulted the deceased with axe on his chest, neck and back. But he had stated before him that accused inflicted three axe blows on the deceased. So the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be said to be contrary to his statement made before the I.O. Learned counsel appearing for the accused -appellant submitted that the trial Court ought not have convicted the accused -appellant basing on the solitary evidence of P.W.2 in absence of any corroboration to that effect. Corroboration is not a rule of law, it is a rule of prudence only. If the evidence of a solitary witness is clinching, trustworthy and reliable, conviction can be based on such evidence. There is no evidence to show that P.W.2 had any axe to grind against the accused -appellant. The conduct of the said witness in rushing to the house of the deceased and informing the incident to his family members just after the occurrence strengthens his evidence that he saw the incident. Moreover, as transpires from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, and 3 sometime after lodging of the F.I.R. at the Police Station, while all these three witnesses were very much present there, the accused voluntarily came to the police station with an axe (M.O.I) and produced the same before the I.O. The chemical examination report shows that the axe was found to have contained human blood. So, the conduct of the accused and the fact that human blood was detected on the axe further fortifies that the accused -appellant and none else was the assailant of the deceased.