JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPAT.RA, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2003 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.50 of 2002/S.C. 67/01 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C') and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

2. The case of the prosecution as revealed from the F.I.R. and the evidence of the witnesses examined during trial is that the deceased is the wife of the appellant. On 7.5.2000 the daughter of the appellant namely, Jamuna (P.W.4) came to the house of her uncle Basu (P.W.3) and reported that her mother, the deceased is lying dead in the house. P.W.3 along with others, immediately came to the house of the appellant and found the deceased lying dead inside the room with bleeding injury on her neck. On their enquiry, the appellant disclosed before them that the deceased used to quarrel and go frequently to her parents house and on that night also she quarrelled with the appellant and was proceeding to her parent's house. The appellant therefore got annoyed and killed her. Thereafter, P.W.3 along with his brother went to the police Station where the oral report was reduced into writing and the case was registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

3. The prosecution in order to prove the charge examined twelve witnesses. Out of the twelve witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was the Ward Member at the time of occurrence and he is a post occurrence witness. P.W.2 is also a post occurrence witness and both P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated about the extra judicial confession made by the appellant. P.W.3 is the informant and the brother of the appellant. He is also a post occurrence witness. P.W.4 is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased and she informed about the death of her mother to P.W.3. P.W.5 is a witness to seizure. P.Ws.6 and 7 are witnesses to recovery of weapon of offence. P.W.7 being the brother of the deceased also came to the house of tile deceased after the occurrence took place. P.W.8 is the constable who accompanied the dead body for post mortem examination. P.W.9 is the doctor who examined the appellant on police requisition. P.W.10 is a witness to seizure under Ext. 7. P.W.11 is another doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and P.W.12 is the investigating officer.

The plea of defence is denial of the prosecution case. It also appears that the appellant took the plea of insanity during the period of occurrence. The trial Court in absence of any direct evidence found the appellant guilty of the charge basing upon the circumstantial evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the so-called extra judicial confession made by the appellant in presence of the police cannot be accepted under law. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly established that the appellant was insane prior to the incident and on the date of the occurrence also he was behaving like an insane person. It is also evident from the evidence that the appellant was being treated for his insanity and accordingly, he should have been given the benefit of Section 84 of the I.P.C.

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, relies on certain circumstances to support the findings of the trial Court.

5. Undisputedly, twelve witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge. P.W.1 at the relevant time was the Ward Member of the village. He came to the house of the appellant having been informed about the incident by P.W.3 and found the deceased lying inside the house. A dibiri lamp was burning nearby and the appellant was sitting near the head of the deceased. On his enquiry, the appel