IMPORTANT POINT
Statement made by accused before police admitting his guilt which was entered in station diary giving rise to FIR will not be admissible in evidence.

JUDGMENT

L. Mohapatra, J. —The appellant having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life in S. T. No. 31 of 1999 by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar has preferred this appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence.

2. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant is the husband of deceased Rama. Marriage between the appellant and the deceased was solemnized in the year 1993 and they had a male child namely Satyabrata. Allegation of the prosecution is that the appellant was addicted to narcotic drugs and ran into debt, as a result of which he had strained relationship with his wife. In the night of 23-24 of April, 1998 the appellant went to bed with the deceased and child in their living room situated in the ground floor. At about 4 p.m. in the morning the appellant woke up his father (PW1) who was sleeping, informed him that he killed his wife and left for the police station with his minor son. P W1, the father, PW2 the brother, and PW3 sister-in-law of the appellant went to the room of the appellant and found the deceased lying on the floor. Thereafter the deceased was shifted to Municipal Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where she was declared dead. The appellant arrived at Lingaraj Police Station at about 6.10 a.m. and admitted to have throttled his wife to death and on receipt of such information, the same was entered into the Station Diary and subsequently a formal F.I.R. was drawn up and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

3. The plea of the appellant is complete denial of the prosecution allegation and it was specific case of the appellant that the deceased committed suicide.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge examined 12 witnesses, but none was examined on behalf of the defence. On analysis of evidence adduced before the Court, learned Sessions Judge relying on the medical evidence as well as the F.I.R. found the appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him thereunder.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenges the judgment and the order of conviction on the ground that there is absolutely no material that the appellant admitted of the alleged crime. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, though post-mortem examination indicates that the death was a homicidal one, there is no other material to show that the appellant is in anyway connected with commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellant himself admitted before the police that he had committed the offence and accordingly a station diary was made and investigation was undertaken. Post-mortem report having corroborated the statement of the appellant, learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding the appellant guilty of the charge.

6. As it appears from the record, the appellant himself appeared before the Lingaraj Police Station and stated that he had committed murder of his wife by throttling the neck using a napkin and such statement was entered into the station diary and subsequently a plain paper F.I.R. was drawn up by PW12. As is evident from the station diary entry, the appellant is supposed to have stated that he had committed murder of his wife by throttling and he had informed his father about the incident and came to the police station to report about the same. PW1, who is the father of the appellant, in his deposition has specifically stated that he had no knowledge as to how the deceased died. There is nothing in his deposition to show that the appellant had confessed before him to have killed his wife. This witness was accordingly declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Nothing is found from the cross-examination to show that the appellant had confessed before PW1 to have killed his wife. PWs 2 and 3 are witnesses who have only stated to have