JUDGMENT
B. Panigrahi, J.
1. The appellant having been convicted for offences committed under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code and having been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, has preferred this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the occurrence took place during the night of 27-10-1992 in village Balita in the district of Keonjhar. The deceased is the grand-mother of the accused-appellant. Some days prior to the occurrence the son of the appellant was suffering from high fever and could not be cured. The appellant suspected the deceased to have practised witchcraft. On the date of occurrence the appellant committed murder of his grand-mother (deceased) by means of a Dauli (M. O. I.) and threw the dead body of the deceased in the paddy field of one Rain Kisan Munda. The further case of the prosecution is that after commission of the crime the appellant confessed his guilt before p. ws. 1, 2 and 3. On the basis of information lodged by p. w. 1, investigation was taken up and charge-sheet was submitted.
3. The plea of the accused is one of denial.
4. The trial court on consideration of the extrajudicial confession made before p. ws. 1, 2 and 3 and other materials on record, found the appellant guilty of the offences and convicted him accordingly.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the finding of the learned Sessions Judge basically on two grounds :
(1) In view of the contradictions appearing in the evidence of p.ws. 1, 2 and 3, the so called extrajudicial confession made before the aforesaid three witnesses cannot be believed. (2) The extrajudicial confession having been retracted, no conviction can be based thereon without corroboration from independent sources.
6. In support of the first contention, the learned counsel for appellant drew the attention of the Court to the evidence of p. w. 1 and submitted that p. w. 1 went to the spot on being informed about the death of the deceased by Soma Munda and Sunaram Munda, whereas p. ws, 2 and 3 claim that they informed p. w. 1 about the death of the deceased whereafter p. w. 1 went to the spot. This is the only contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel and on the basis of the same he argued that the evidence with regard to extrajudicial confession stated by p.ws. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be accepted. We have carefully perused the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses. It is a fact that p. w. 1 in his evidence has stated that he was informed about the death of the deceased by Soma Munda and Sunaram Munda, whereas p. ws. 2 and 3 claim that they informed p. w. 1 about the death of the deceased. But in our view this is not such a material contradiction so as to discard the entire-evidence of p. ws. 1, 2 and 3. On the other hand, p. w. 1 has specifically stated in his deposition that the appellant confessed before him that he had killed the deceased, as she was practising witchcraft, by means of sickle. This part of the evidence with regard to extrajudicial confession has been corroborated by p.ws. 2 and 3 whose presence at the spot at the time of such extrajudicial confession has not been disputed. As a matter of fact, p. w. 1 has also stated in his cross-examination that p. w. 3 was present when the extrajudicial confession was made. p. w. 1 has also stated the exact words spelt out by the appellant while confessing his guilt. p. w. 2 also stated in his deposition that in presence of p. w, 1 and on being asked the appellant confessed that he had killed the deceased and the very same statement is also made by p. w. 3 in
his deposition. We, therefore, do not see any reason to discard the evidence of p. ws. 1, 2 and 3 so far as it relates to the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant.
7. Coming to the second point raised by the learned counsel for appellant, it appears that the shirt which the appellant was wearing at the time of commission of the offence had been seized and the blood-stains found on the shirt had been sent for chemical examination and the report of the Chemical Examiner has been marked as Ext. 17. The report of the Chemical Examiner clearly shows that the blood found on the shirt of the appellant was of human origin and of group ‘B’. The saree which was seized by the Police stated to be worn by the deceased also contained blood which had been sent for chemical examination and the same group of human blood was found on the saree. No explanation is forthcoming as to how the same group of human blood as that of the deceased was found on the shirt of the appellant. The learned counsel for appellant on being questioned could not give any answer to the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that the extrajudicial confession which has been retracted by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not corroborated by any other evidence. At the time of argument learned counsel for appellant has also submitted that p. w. 1 being a Ward Member is a person in authority and therefore, the estrajudicial confession made before him cannot be accepted. p. w. 1 being only a Ward Member it cannot be said that he is a person in authority and we are not in a position to accept such contention advanced by the learned counsel for appellant.
8. Considering the evidence of p. ws. 1, 2 and 3 we find that there is no reason to discard their evidence and the confession made by the appellant before them is voluntary and also true as the appellant is not in a position to explain as to how human blood of ‘B’ group appeared in the shirt he was wearing on the date of occurrence.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
L. Mohapatra, J.
9. I agree.
10. Appeal dismissed.