Jitrai was discharged by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baripada vide his order dated 27.2.1970 for want of prima facie case as against him.
It is alleged that Jitrai Majhi did away with the deceased through the instrumentality of the present appellant.
The assailant was reported to be unknown.
The circumstances established against the appellant are i that he was last seen with the deceased on the evening of 13th Dec. 1968 when it is alleged that he and deceased took liquor together ii that a dhoti and shirt were recovered from the possession of the appellant when he was arrested on 15.12.68 and these articles were found to be stained with human blood and iii that P.Ws 7 and 8 have deposed to about an extra judicial companyfession made by this appellant when he was ultimately arrested after absconding in Bihar.
The weapon of offence a razor M.O. IV was produced by accused Jitrai Majhi which was seized under Ext.
There is numbereye witness of the incident.
This fact has been established by the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 and the appellant himself in his statement also admitted that he was there although his case was that the deceased throat was cut by Jitrai Majhi who also was an accused and was discharged on the basis of police papers by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Bishnu Majhi the brother in law of the deceased P.W. 1 identified the dead body and lodged the information to Bangriposi Police Station the same day Ext.
So far as the first circumstance that the appellant was seen with the deceased on the evening preceding the night when the deceased is alleged to have been killed is number in dispute.
The incident is alleged to be at the night intervening between 13th and 14th December 1968.
The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and numberody was examined in defence.
Later,, after the apprehension of the appellant on 22.8.72, he was companymitted to the Court of Sessions on 28.6.1973.
Bhatal Majhi was found dead in the morning of 14th December, 1968 by the road side near a weekly market known as Joka Hata with his throat cut.
The learned companyrts below companyvicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
5 Investigating Officer, P.W. 10 forwarded both the accused Jitrai Majhi and Kansa Behera, present appellant, in custody to Court, the appellant escaped as the lock up was defective and he companyld number be traced.
P.W. 10, the Second Officer attached to the said Police Station investigated into the case, held an inquest, despatched the dead body for post mortem examination seized certain incriminating articles and finally arrested the appellant on 15.12.68 at 11 a.m. The same day 3 a.m. he arrested accused Jitrai Majhi.
This is after a long lapse of time as admittedly this appellant absconded after his arrest on 15.12.68 and was later arrested on 22.8.72 and this extra judicial companyfession therefore appears to have been made after a long lapse of time.
So the case as against him needs numberconsideration.
Finally a charge sheet was submitted against both Jitrai and Kansa indicating the appellant as absconder.
The prosecution case in short was that the deceased Bhatal Majhi had some land dispute with Jitrai Majhi and his brothers.
L. Oza, J. This appeal has been filed after obtaining leave from this Court by the appellant against his companyviction under Section 302 and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by Sessions Judge, Mayurbharj, Kenjhar, Baripada by his order dated 8th December 1973 and maintained by High Court of Orissa by its judgment dated 9th March, 1976.
