MADAN @ UNDU BARIK Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has sent this petition of appeal from jail challenging his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Sambalpur and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) PROSECUTION alleged that Lata (P.W. 9) was the wife of one Kastu Barik and through Kastu, she had a son Madan (Appellant) and a daughter Sumitra (P.W. 8). After Kastu's death, Lata re -married Ghasia. Madan and Sumitra lived in village Gundruchuan in the house of their grand -parents. Their grand -parents' house was in front of the house of the deceased, a goldsmith. This goldsmith was a chronic asthma patient and an opium addict. Appellant was engaged as a labourer by him and used to do petty errands for the deceased. He was also in the habit of carrying the deceased on the back of his bicycle to villages where the deceased went on professional business. On 25 -7 -1974, the deceased as also his sister (P.W. 7) required the Appellant to carry the deceased to village Laida. Then the Appellant pleaded that he had to go and collect fire -wood and so saying, he proceeded on the village path leading towards Laida with an axe in hand. A little later, the deceased proceeded behind in the same direction. The deceased, however, did not return home either that day or on the day following. P.W. 7 made anxious enquiries and requested the co -villagers to make a search for her brother. P. ws. 4 and 5 reported that on their way from Laida hospital to their village, they found a part of a deadbody mostly below the waist with a cloth covering it. P.W. 1, who heard the report of P.Ws. 4 and 5, came to the jungle and after verification, sent intimation to the police through P.W. 2 who lodged the first information report (Ext. 2). The body was alleged to have been identified as that of the deceased.

(3.) THE defence was one of complete denial. The Appellant claimed that he was never a casual labourer of the deceased and pleaded that he was working under P.W. 3. He denied to have gone with the deceased on the alleged date of occurrence and retracted from the supposed extra -judicial confession. He also denied to have given discovery of any article belonging to the deceased.