DULLAV KHORA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, having been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, has preferred this appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore, Camp -Malkangiri in S.C. No. 23/95.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that on 23.1.1995 at about 5 P.M. while the deceased along with P.W.1 were going from their village Manusha to village Bhimarangini to the house of P.W.2 to observe 'PAUSA PARBA', there was a quarrel between the deceased and two accused persons charge -sheeted including the appellant. It is further Case of the prosecution that the appellant Dullav along other accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and dragged him. P.W.1 out of fear ran to the house of P.W.2 and informed about the incident. Immediately thereafter P.W.2 along with some villagers came in search of the deceased but could not trace him. On the next date, i.e. 24.1.1995 P.W.2 lodged a written report (Ext. 6) before the O.I.C. of Malkangiri Police Station and a station diary entry was made. He searched for the deceased and ultimately on 27.1.1995 at about 8 A.M. P.W.1 and others found dead body of the deceased was lying near Bariha Dangar and by that time his left hand was completely removed and his both testicles were removed and there were marks of several injuries on his head and chest and there was also no hair in his head. It is also the Case of the prosecution that the appellant made an extra -judicial confession before the P.W.3 and after such extra judicial confession, a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 5) was lodged before the O.I.C, Malkangiri Police Station. The case was registered against the appellant and one Dhanu Khora for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C and charge -sheet was also submitted for the aforesaid two offences. Both the accused persons faced trial, but the appellant was convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and the other accused namely Dhanu Khora was acquitted of the charges.

(3.) MRS . Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant challenges the legality of the findings arrived at by the trial Court on the ground that the extra -judicial confession on which much reliance has been placed by the trial Court cannot form basis of conviction unless the prosecution is in a position to prove the basis for which the appellant made such a confession before P.W.3. It is further contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the evidence of P.W.1 is of no help to the prosecution since she has specifically admitted in cross -examination that she had not seen any assault on the deceased at the hands of the appellant. The only material available against the appellant being leading to discovery of weapon of offence, in absence of any corroborative evidence, judgment of the trial Court is unsustainable. Learned Counsel for the State referring to the deposition of witnesses examined in course of trial submitted that the circumstance proved by the prosecution complete the chain and there is no room to entertain any doubt so far as guilt of the appellant is concerned.