JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant appeal is against Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 28.07.1994 and 02.08.1994 respectively passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 527 of 1987/T.R. No. 144/1993, whereby and whereunder, the appellant, namely, Sahay Laung has been convicted under Section 302/34 and Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and further rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story as per the F.I.R., in brief is that on 05.09.1985, the informant, namely, Munni (wife of the deceased) and her husband had gone to the house of her brother Mangru Munda in evening. The deceased, Bayar Ram Munda went out from there saying to return in a short while. But he never returned. Since then, she along with her brother and brother-in-law remained in search of the deceased but did not find him. On Monday, Sanha was lodged about missing of the deceased. In course of search, she learnt that Ishwar Das Lung, the brother in law of the deceased had taken him to his house on Thursday itself for taking dinner and since then he was missing. Ishwar Das told her that after taking dinner, the deceased had left his house in the night itself. One day prior to the F.I.R., the informant was told by the Mano Mundain at about 11 : 00 a.m. that one Shepherd told her about lying of one dead body at Ambapahar. Thereafter, she, along with Mukhia, Sarpanch, her brother, sister and brother-in-law went there and saw the dead body and identified the body as of her husband. A serious doubt has been cast against Ishwar Das Lung, the brother in law of the deceased and his friend Yakub Lung. An F.I.R. was instituted stating therein that calling the deceased in his house for dinner, Ishwar and his friend had murdered him after taking liquor.

3. It is also pertinent to mention here that the informant, namely, Munni (wife of the deceased) had gone along with the Mukhia, Sarpanch and Chaukidar of the Village to the Police Station to lodge the F.I.R.

4. The case was registered as Karra P.S. Case No. 25 of 1985.

5. During investigation the police found the complicity of the present appellant and one another person namely Manmasi Lung in the said crime and accordingly, submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khunti thereafter, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session and the charge was framed against the accused persons for the commission of offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 and the accused persons pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem.

6. The learned Court below after taking into consideration the corroborative piece of evidence which has been gathered in course of examination of the prosecution witnesses, has acquitted another accused person namely Manmasi Lung and has convicted the accused/appellant after finding charge proved beyond all reasonable doubts and thereafter, order of sentence was passed against the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and further rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal.

7. The instant appeal has been filed on the following grounds in assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence:—

(i) The judgment of conviction is based upon the extra judicial confession