BISI CHHURIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in Sessions Case No. 90/5 of 1991 has challenged the order of conviction under Section 302, I.P.C.and sentence of life imprisonment vide judgment dated 18-11-1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir.

(2.) Prosecution case, as reveals from the lower Court record, is that in the morning hours on 25-7-90 Saibasuta Chhuria, a boy aged about 12 to 13 years (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') had gone to the field to tend to the goats. There he was killed by the appellant who dealt axe blow to the neck of the deceased. Though the occurrence was not witnessed by anybody but soon after the occurrence the brother of the deceased Chakaman Chhuria (P.W.7) reached there to hand over food to the deceased. When he called aloud his brother the accused from the spot of the occurrence on the field responded by saying that the deceased was no more alive as he (the appellant) killed him (the deceased). P.W.7 went nearer and found the deceased was lying dead with cut and bleeding injury on his neck and the accused was moving round the dead body holding the axe (M.O.I.) and threatened P.W.7 to kill if he would go further nearer. Similarly, Mununga Mahakud, aunt (father's sister) of the deceased had gone to work on her field (where the occurrence took place) and saw the same scene like P.W.7 and same reaction of the appellant. She came and informed the matter to her husband Maya Mahakud (P.W.4) P.W.4 went to the spot, saw the accused moving round the dead body holding the axe and being advised he went and reported the matter in the Police Station. Said Mununga had also intimated about the murder to her brother Gupteswar Chhuria (P.W.1) father of the deceased. P.W.1 rushed to the spot and saw the accused standing with the axe and the deceased lying in a pool of blood and the appellant did not allow him and other co-villagers to go near the dead body. It is the further case of the prosecution that before the co-villagers and relations of the deceased whosoever reached the spot the appellant voluntarily made confessional statement that he killed the deceased. The Investigating Officer (P.W.12) conducted a routine investigation. On completion of the same and having found a prima facie case submitted charge sheet for the offence of murder. Charge was framed under section 302, I.P.C.Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

(3.) To substantiate the charge prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Out of them P.Ws. 1 and 7 are witnesses to prove extra judicial confession besides relating to the circumstantial evidence that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the field of P.W.4 where the accused was moving round the dead body holding the bloodstained axe (M.O.I.) and was not permitting anybody to come near the dead body; P.Ws. 2 and 4 are also witnesses to the circumstantial evidence that the appellant being armed with axe was moving round the dead body of the deceased P.W.12 is the I.O.who seized the M.O.I., bloodstained and sample earth, bloodstained wearing apparels of the deceased (M.Os. II and III) and bloodstained wearing apparels of the appellant (M.Os. IV, V and VI) and P.Ws. 3, 5 and 10 as witnesses to the different seizures; P.W.2 as witness to the inquest as well as a witness to the measurement of the land made by the Revenue Inspector (P.W.9); P.W.6 as witness regarding collection of nail clippings of the appellant; P.W.11 the police constable, regarding identification of the dead body taken for post-mortem examination; and P.W.8, the Doctor who held autopsy on the dead body, to prove the post-mortem report (Ext. 9) and also opinion report (Ext. 10). Prosecution also relied upon the above noted exhibited documents besides the report of the chemical examiner and serologist (Ext. 16) relating to presence of human blood in different material objects.