SUBASH CHANDRA BAG Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant having been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh in Sessions Trial No.170/32 of 1996 for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) P .W.6 is the father of the informant and also the informant in this case. It is the case of the prosecution that 15 days prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant, his wife and two children, one of whom is alleged to have been murdered by the appellant, came to the house of the informant in village Talmunda and stayed there. Three to four days prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant in absence of other inmates of the house went to his village along with his minor son Rajeeb Bag (deceased) and returned home alone and on being asked he did not disclose anything and thereafter started making prevaricating statements which created suspicion in the mind of the family of the informant. They searched of the deceased but could not trace him. On further query the appellant admitted to have killed the deceased and thrown the dead body at Bhaludungri hillock. Pursuant to such extra -judicial confession made by the appellant, P.Ws.7 and 8 went in search of the dead body and found the same lying in the said hillock. Thereafter P.W.6 lodged an F.I.R. on the basis of which investigation was taken up and charge -sheet was filed on completion of investigation.

(3.) PROSECUTION in order to prove the charge examined 13 witnesses. Out of the 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1 is the doctor who conducted post -mortem examination. P.W.2 is a witness to the inquest and seizure. P.W.3 is a witness who had seen the appellant and the deceased before the occurrence. P.W.4 is the brother of the appellant who turned hostile. P.W.5 is the wife of the appellant who has stated about the extra -judicial confession and P.W.6 is the informant who is father -in -law of the appellant and has stated about the extra -judicial confessions. P.Ws.7 and 8 had gone in search of the dead body and found the dead body. P.W.9 claims to have seen the appellant and the deceased prior to the date of occurrence. P.W.10 is a police officer who conducted a part of the investigation. P.W.11 is a witness to the inquest and P.W.12 is the I.O. P.W.13 is also a police officer who conducted part of the investigation. Trial Court on the basis of the extra -judicial confession deposed to by the P.Ws. 5 and 6, evidence of P.Ws.3 and 9 that they had seen the deceased and the appellant prior to the date of occurrence corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 who found the dead body of the deceased in the hillock as well as the evidence of P.W.1 who conducted post -mortem examination, found the appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him thereunder.