PURANDORA KHINANG Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 3.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 34 of 1999 convicting the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one year.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as revealed from the record is that on 14.11.1998 at about 9 P.M. the Appellant was knocking his door when P. Ws.1 and 2 got up from sleep, came out of the house and found the Appellant standing with a blood stained Tangia. On being questioned, the Appellant confessed to have killed his brother Kaladhar Khilar. Thereafter, the Appellant was caught hold of and the tangia was snatched away from his hands. The matter was reported to the police by P.W.1 which was treated as F.I.R. and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that extra judicial confession by itself is a week piece of evidence and therefore, solely on the basis of the extra judicial confession, the trial court could not have convicted the Appellant for commission of the alleged offence. It was also contended by the learned Counsel that P. Ws.1 and 2 before whom the prosecution alleges that the Appellant made the extra judicial confession were not in friendly term with the Appellant and the basis of evidence shows that they had enmity and therefore, under these circumstances, no reliance could be placed on the evidence of P. Ws.1 and 2 so far as extra judicial confession is concerned. According to the learned Counsel, once extra judicial confession is left out of consideration, there is no other material to connect the Appellant with the alleged crime and therefore, the impugned judgment convicting the Appellant is unsustainable.