RAGHU SAMARATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case may be stated in brief. The Appellant was admittedly the field servant of the deceased. He took an advance of Rs. 80/ - and there was an agreement that he would work under the deceased for years. The deceased was also to supply him with food and clothing. A few days prior to the occurrence there was theft of a gold necklace from the house of the deceased. The Appellant was suspected. He offered to give a Salap tree towards the price of the necklace. The deceased did not accept this offer, but insisted that the Appellant should work for 10 years more. This led to some ill -feeling. On the date of occurrence, that is, on 28 -6 -1965 there was some altercation between the Appellant and the deceased as the former did not regularly attend to work. That day in the night the deceased and his wife (P.W. 7) slept on the is verandah after taking this evening meals. The Appellant left for his house. Sometime after the deceased was killed with his own Tangia. After hearing the groaning sound P.W. 7 got up and found somebody running away. Some of the witnesses gathered on the spot after hearing the hulla and found the Tangia sticking on the head of the deceased. The Appellant admits most part of the prosecution story. His main defence before the Sessions Judge was that he was massaging the legs of the deceased at about 10 P.M. When he wanted to go back home, the deceased gave him a kick on his chest. He fell down. The deceased got up, caught hold of his Tangia and wanted to kill him. In self defence he snatched away the Tangia from the hand of the deceased and dealt a blow on his head. The Tangia remains sticking on head or the deceased.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge after elaborate discussion of the evidence came to the conclusion that death was homicidal. Before us the fact that death was homicidal is not disputed. The prosecution wants to establish its case through the extra -judicial confession made before P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, the judicial confession (Ext. 4) made before a magistrate, second class (P.W. 10), and the statement of the Appellant before the committing Court where he did not take to any plea of right of private defence.

(3.) IT is to be noted that the Appellant made also a judicial confession before P.W. 10 who is a magistrate, second class. He deposes that be was especially empowered to record confession under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. A question of law arises whether in the absence of any notification proving the authority his evidence would be sufficient to bold that he bad the authority. In view of the fact that there is abundant evidence otherwise on the basis of which the conviction can be upheld we express no opinion on this legal question in this case and do not rest our judgment on the judicial confession.