(1.) THIS appeal is against conviction Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life.
(2.) PROSECUTION evidence discloses that on the night of 22nd August, 1965 at about 2 -3 A.M. hulla was raised by the accused crying 'thief, thief. Phanidhar (P.W. 1), a neighbour of the accused and relation, went out and met the accused who told him that he had cut a thief -He then along with the accused and another Dimbeswar went to Padmeswar Gaonbura (P.W. 3) aroused him from sleep. The accused told the Gaonbura that he had cut a thief with the dos which he was carrying at that time and showed it to the Gaonbura. The gaonbura then came to the place of occurrence with them and found the dead body of the deceased Tepuram lying near 3/4 nals from the house of the accused. The place where the dead body was found was 20/25 nals from the house of the deceased. Tepuram had bleeding injuries.
(3.) IT appears that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The statement of the accused is corroborated by the prosecution witnesses examined in the case. The accused claims to have assaulted the deceased with his dao in exercise of his right of private defence. It is really unfortunate that the police officer did not make any statement as to whether there was blood either inside the house of the accused or near the walls of the house which were said to be cut by the thieves. The police officer did not state anything about the cutting of the walls or door, although P.W. 3 deposed to that effect. The only statement which the police officer (P.W. 8) made is to the effect that he did not see any blood mark inside the accused's compound. Although he held the inquest, he does not say whether there was a pool of blood at the place where the dead body was lying. When the only evidence against the accused is confession, it was necessary during investigation to check the truth or otherwise of the confession by an independent investigation which is deficient in this case.