PURUSOTTAM MUDULI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant has assailed his conviction U/s. 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years respectively vide judgment dated 11.11.2009 in C.T. Case No.18 of 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur.

(2.) Adumbrated in brief, the accusation runs thus:-

(3.) Mr. Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injuries found on the deceased and injuredinformant could not have been caused by the seized Tangia (M.O.I) as all those injuries were lacerated in nature. He further submits that the sole eye-witness being related to the deceased as brother is not reliable and the post-occurrence witnesses having given discrepant testimonies about the time of apprehension of the accused with the weapon of offence, a reasonable doubt creeps in, of which benefit should be extended to the accused. He further submits that the extrajudicial confession as stated is found to have been obtained by coercion and is not admissible.