LATU MUKHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE appellant was working as a sweeper in the Primary Health Centre at Manmunda Hospital. A quarters had been allotted to him within the premises of the said hospital. He was living with his wife the deceased. On 4.3.1966 the accused went to P.W. 2, who was working as a Dhai in the said Health Centre, and told her that he assaulted hie wife. P.W. 2 intimated this fact to P.W. 3 who is a servant of the Primary Health Centre. The appellant also went to Manmunda Police Station at about 7 A.M. and told the writer constable (P.W. 1) that he assaulted his wife severely. A station diary entry was made to that effect and he was detained in the Police Station.

(3.) THE next question for consideration is whether the accused killed the deceased. There is no eye -witness to the occurrence. The conviction can be sustained only on the extra -judicial confession made by the accused to P.W. 2. The confession has been retracted. It accordingly needs corroboration. P.W. 2 deposed that the accused came to her in the early morning on 4.3.1966, smoked a Biri at her house and disclosed to her that he assaulted his wife. She was cot cross, examined at all. Only a suggestion was made to her that the accused had enmity with her which she denied. Nothing was suggested as to why P.W. 2 would falsely implicate the accused in such a heinous crime. P. W. 2 narrated as to how the accused made an admission before her and she informed the fact to P.W. 3 who was also a servant of the Primary Health Centre. P.W. 3 went to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying with bleeding injuries. The confession made by the accused thus stands corroborated by the factum of the deceased lying, being assaulted by somebody. We accordingly place reliance on the evidence of P.W. 2 and hold that it is the accused who severely assaulted the deceased as a result of which the deceased ultimately died.