JUDGMENT

1. Heard further argument from the parties. Hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows :

2. Appellant challenges the judgment dated 21.11.1998 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial No.211/61 of 1995 arising out of G.R. Case No. 861 of 1995 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Panposh corresponding to Lathikata P.S. Case No.17 of 1995. In that case accused stood charged for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and after completion of the trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. According to the prosecution, accused was unhappy on the conduct of Hari @ Harekrishna Senapati (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and therefore in the night between 22nd and 23rd of June, 1995 while the deceased was sleeping on the veran¬dah of the brick-kiln office of Giridhari Swain (P.W.6), accused came and dealt multiple blows by means of ‘Katari’ (knife), M.O.-I. After dealing such blows accused fled away from the spot, but the deceased shouted for help and sought for attendance of Periya Toppo (P.W.7). That witness together with some others arrived at the spot and found the deceased in severely injured and bleeding condition and administered water to him besides tying a napkin to check the profuse bleeding from the abdomen of the deceased. P.W.6 Giridhari Swain being the owner of the brick-kiln and uncle of the deceased, he was informed about the incident, and after his arrival in a vehicle the deceased was taken to Vesaj Patel Nursing Home. According to the prosecution, on arrival of P.W.7 the deceased made statement naming the accused as the author of the injuries. He also repeated the same statement after arrival of P.W.6 and when the deceased was in the process of shifting to the Nursing Home. Unfortunately he could not reach alive at the Nursing Home. He was found dead by the doctor in the Nursing Home and thereafter P.Ws.6 and 7 together with the dead body of the deceased and the other accompanying persons went to the police station and there P.W.7 lodged the F.I.R., Ext.5, naming the appellant as the assailant of the deceased. After conducting inquest and preparing the Inquest Report, Ext.4, the dead body was forwarded for post-mortem examination alongwith the requisi¬tion in the Dead Body Chalan. Dr. S.K. Pati, P.W.14 together with another doctor conducted post-mortem examination and in the trial Court proved the Post-mortem Report, Ext.10. On 24.07.1995 he also gave his Opinion Report, Ext.11/2 after examining M.O.-I and stating that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased being possible by that weapon. In course of investigation, as¬sistance of Sri P.K. Pradhan, Scientific Officer (P.W.11) was taken to seize the bloodstained articles and other incriminating materials from the spot of occurrence. Accused was arrested on 23.06.1995, and in course of interrogation he made statement giving discovery of M.O.-I. That statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and marked as Ext.18, whereas the Seizure List as Ext.2. At the time of arrest of the accused since there was an injury on his left palm and statement of the accused in course of the interrogation disclosed that he sustained that injury in course of assaulting because of some resistance provid¬ed by the deceased. Therefore, requisition Ext.14/2 for his examination by doctor was issued by the Investigating Officer and on that basis Dr. Jayakrushna Patel, the Medical Officer (P.W.17) examined the accused on 24.06.1995 at about 10.45 a.m. and in the Court he proved the Injury Certificate, Ext.14. He also collected the nail clippings and scrappings and forwarded the same under his Report, Ext.15. The spot map, which was drawn in course of the spot inspection, was proved by the Investigating Officer as Ext.17. The incriminating articles including the bloodstained earth, wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased, the weapon of offenc