The appellant filed an appeal in the High Court which did number agree with the finding of the Sessions Judge on the assessment of oral evidence led by the prosecution and appears to have accepted the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 7.
3 to 7 were.
A detailed narrative of the prosecution case is to be found in the judgement of the High Court and it is number necessary for us to repeat the same all over again.
PW 2 has number admitted this fact before the police but from the evidence it appears that he was also ploughing the land at the same place where P.Ws.
In doing so the High Court tried to displace some of the reasons given by the Sessions Judge but seems to have overlooked one very important fact which companypletely demolishes the evidence of these witnesses We would like to indicate this fact first.
According to the statement of the eye witnesses P Ws.
The central evidence against the appellant companysisted of the following Evidence of P.Ws.
In these circumstance the evidence of PW 2 also falls in the same category as those of P.Ws.
2 to 7 at the time of occurrence they were ploughing in the Atia Land of Daitari which is a low lying area but which according to the statement of the witnesses made before the police was number visible from the place of occurrence number any person standing there companyld be in a position to see the occurrence.
P.Ws 3 to 7 had tried to resile from the statement which they gave before the police but on being companyfronted the Investigating Officer has proved that each one of them has made that statement before the police, that they were at the low lying area where the occurrence took place and which was number visible from there.
The appellant is said to have assaulted Ushabati Padhan by means of an axe on 14 8 1967 at 7.00 a.m. following a dispute between the appellant and his party and Ushabati Padhan who are laid some claim to the land which was being ploughed by the appellant.
The Sessions Judge further found that the companyfession was voluntary and he based his companyviction on the companyfession alone companyroborated as it was by the evidence of P.Ws.
1 to 7 Judicial companyfession made by the appellant before a Magistrate Production of the blood stained Tangia from the appellants house after taking it from his house The trial companyrt after companysidering the evidence refused to rely on the oral evidence led by the prosecution arid disbelieved P.Ws.
Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 16th March, 1972, upholding the companyviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the Sessions Judge.
