L.MOHAPATRA, J & B.K.PATEL, J. JCRA NO.70 & 71 OF 2001 (Decided on 15.11.2011) BUDHUNI DEHURY & ANR. ……..Appellants. .Vrs. STATE OF ORISSA ………Respondent. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (ACT NO.1 OF 1872 ) – S.8. For Appellant - Mrs. Minakumari Das. For Respondent - Mr. S.Das, Addl. Standing Counsel. B.K. PATEL, J. Both the appeals from jail are directed against the judgment dated 1.8.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangapur in S.T. Case No.42/172 of 2000 convicting both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the I.P.C.’) and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of murder of deceased Khairi Dehury. 2. Appellant Budhuni is appellant Dhunda’s wife and deceased’s only daughter. After death of her husband deceased was residing in the house of appellants. P.W.2 is appellant Dunda’s brother’s wife. Informant P.W.3 is deceased’s husband’s brother’s son. P.W.4 is the Dakua of the occurrence village Dahupani. P.W.5 is deceased’s husband’s brother. Occurrence took place on 22.5.2000 at about 4.30 P.M. Prosecution case, as it appears from the F.I.R. and evidence on record, is that on the date of occurrence at about 5.00 P.M. appellant Dhunda went to the house of P.W.4, told him that his mother-in-law, the deceased died. Thereafter, he told informant P.W.3 that the deceased died and asked him to come to his house. P.W.3 went to the house of the appellants and found the deceased lying dead with injuries on her. On being asked both the appellants told that the deceased having quarreled with them they killed her by assaulting with lathi and throatling her neck. On being questioned regarding the reason for quarrel, appellant Dhunda told that in the morning they alongwith the deceased had been to village Baruni. While returning, the deceased could not walk for which they left her on the way. At about 4.30 P.M. the deceased returned to the house and found that the appellants were sleeping. She woke up appellant Budhuni and abused her for having slept without cooking. There was verbal altercation and quarrel upon which appellant Budhuni assaulted the deceased with lathi. When the deceased snatched away the lathi, appellant Dhunda dealt kick blows on her and laid her flat on the courtyard. Appellant Budhuni sat on deceased’s chest and throttled her to death. Having heard regarding the occurrence, informant P.W.3 called a village meeting in which being asked by the villagers, both the appellants confessed to have killed the deceased. On the basis of oral narration of the occurrence made by P.W.3 at Gorumahisani Police Station, P.W.9, the O.I.C. prepared the F.I.R. Ext.6 and took up investigation. On completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was submitted against the appellants. 3. Appellants took the plea of complete denial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.Ws.2 to 5 and 9 have already been introduced. P.Ws. 1 and 6 deposed regarding extra-judicial confession made by the appellants. P.W.7 is the police constable who assisted P.W.9 in the investigation. P.W. 8 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Prosecution also relied upon documents marked Exts.1 to 10 and material objects M.Os. I and II. No defence evidence was adduced. 5. Placing reliance on the evidence of eye witness P.W.2 coupled with medical evidence and circumstance of extra-judicial confession made by the appellants, the trial court held the prosecution to have established the charge against the appellants. 6. In assailing the impugned judgment, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence with regard to the motive for commission of murder of the deceased by the appellants. There is nothing to indicate that their relationship with the deceased was strained. Deceased was residing with the appellants. It is argued that in the absence of evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding the motive of offence, the trial court should not have relied upon the evidence of P.W.2. It is further argued that so far as extra-judicial confession made by the appellants is concerned, it appears that the appellants are stated to have made extra-judicial confession before a number of villagers. In the absence of positive evidence to the effect that confession made by the appellants was voluntary, it would not be safe to accept such confession. 7. Placing reliance on evidence of eye witness P.W.2 coupled with medical evidence it is contended by the learned counsel for the State that prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellants who, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of the deceased by assaulting her and throttling her neck. 8. P.W.2 who happens to be appellant Dhunda’s brother’s wife is an eye witness to the occurrence. She testified that at first appellant Budhuni assaulted the deceased by means of a lathi and thereafter appellant Dhunda assaulted the deceased. When deceased fell down, appellant Budhuni sat on the chest of the deceased and pressed her neck. Appellants also assaulted on the head and other parts of the body of the deceased. Nothing has been elicited in course of cross-examination of P.W.2 by the defence to discredit her evidence. P.W.8 noticed multiple bruises over both sides of deceased’s neck and lower part of face over mandibular region. There was fracture of both angles of mandible and dislocation of left tempor mandible joint apart from other injuries. One abrasion was 2 noticed below right knee joint also. Injuries were ante mortem in nature and cause of death was asphyxia caused by throttling. Thus, evidence of eye witness P.W.2 finds corroboration from medical evidence. P.W.3 testified that it was the appellant Dhunda who informed the village Dakua P.W.4 that he and appellant Budhuni had killed the deceased. The villagers assembled and went to the house of the appellants. They found blood in the outside courtyard and the deceased was lying dead. On their question, both the appellants confessed that they killed the deceased and appellant Dhunda requested the villagers to forgive him by taking one goat from him. Testimony of P.W.3 is materially corroborated by the contents of the F.I.R. Ext.6. P.W.1 also deposed that both the appellants confessed before the villagers that they killed the deceased. P.W.4, the village Dakua testified that appellant Dhunda went to him and told that he and appellant Budhuni assaulted the deceased by means of lathi as a result of which she fell down and died and appellant Dhunda also told that appellant Budhuni sat on the chest of the deceased. P.W.4 called the villagers and went to the house of the appellants. They found blood in the courtyard and the deceased was lying with bleeding injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. On their question, both the appellants made extra-judicial confession before P.Ws.4 and 6 that they had killed the deceased. Appellant Dhunda requested to settle the matter but the villagers informed regarding the occurrence to the police. Both P.Ws.5 and 6 also testified that on being asked by the villagers, appellant Dhunda made extra-judicial confession in presence of appellant Budhuni to the effect that he and appellant Budhuni killed the deceased. Thus, evidence of P.W.2 is supported by evidence of witnesses before whom the appellants had made extra-judicial confession. 9. Prosecution having adduced direct evidence in support of allegation made against the appellants to have committed murder of the deceased and such evidence having been found to be corroborated not only by unimpeachable medical evidence but also by the circumstance of extra-judicial confession made by the appellants, absence of proof of motive is of little relevance. Upon scrutiny of the evidence on record, there appears no infirmity in the impugned judgment holding that the prosecution has established the charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There is no merit in both the appeals. 10. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed. 3