KANHU MAJHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal from Jail Kanhu Majhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality of his conviction for commission of an offence punish-able under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore. Accusations which led to trial of accused were that he killed his brother Arji Majhi alias Arjuna Majhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased').

(2.) In a nutshell the prosecution case runs as follows :On 22-6-1991 at about 10 p.m. there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. Accused chased the deceased holding an axe and dealt one blow at his back as a result of which he fell down on the road and thereafter the accused dealt further blows. As a result of the assaults the deceased met instantaneous death. The occurrence was seen by Neelakantha Majhi (P.W. 3). Subsequently the accused made an extrajudicial confession before Marayana Hial (P.W. 2), Tankadhar Majhi (P.W. 5) and Bogi Majhi (P.W. 4). Law was set into motion by Krushna Majhi (P.W.1), brother of the deceased. Acting on the basis of first information report lodged by Krushna, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof charge sheet was submitted. Placing reliance on the evidence of witnesses examined to further the case of prosecution, more particularly P.W. 3 who claimed to be an eye-witness and P.Ws. 4 and 5, who stated about the extrajudicial confession, learned trial Judge found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) In support of the appeal, Mr. V. Narasingh, the learned counsel submitted that the occurrence took place at night at about 10 p.m. Therefore, it is highly improbable that P.W. 3 could have seen it from a distance of about 15 ft. It is stated that no reason has been indicated as to why accused would make confession before P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5. Further, the alleged occurrence having taken place during the course of a quarrel, Exception 4 to Section 300 is attracted.Learned counsel for State submitted that the factual position has been elaborately analysed by the learned trial Judge and there is no infirmity to warrant interference.