JUDGMENT

PRADIP MOHANTY, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Chhatrapur convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, for short the 'IPC', and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC, in Sessions Case No. 4/2003/ S.C. 172/2002 GDC.

2. The case of the prosecution, bereft of unnecessary details, is that on 06.09.2001 at about 8:00 A.M. the deceased Mama Polei had been to her land. Her husband had been to nearby forest to bring thorn bush. At noon, two children of the deceased went to the land taking meals for the deceased. They could not get their mother there and came back. They intimated missing of their mother to their elder father (informant), who informed the fact to his brother (husband of the deceased) after his return. Then both the brothers searched for the deceased at 'Balipadar' as well as at her parental house but could not get any trace of her. They along with the villagers again went in search of the deceased and at about mid-night detected the dead body of the deceased, which was kept concealed inside a bush near the 'Jagada River' covering branches of tree in a naked position with some injuries. They also noticed that some gold ornaments of the deceased were missing. Thereafter, they brought the dead body of the deceased to her house and reported the matter at Kodala Police Station consequent upon which the case was registered and investigation taken up. In course of investigation accused gave recovery of 'saree' of the deceased which was seized by the I.O.. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 302/379/209 of the IPC.

3. The plea of the defence is one of clean denial and false implication due to enmity.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses including the doctor and the I.O. and exhibited 12 documents. Defence has examined none.

5. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatrapur on completion of trial, basing on the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 8, by whom the deceased and accused were last seen together, and other circumstantial evidence including recovery of the wearing apparels of the deceased at the instance of accused, held the appellant guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379, IPC and accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo S.1. for six months, for the offence under Section 302, IPC and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 379, IPC.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the following grounds:

(i) Evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 8 cannot be relied upon for any purpose, since they for the first time disclosed the fact to police after 25 days of the occurrence and their evidence also otherwise suffers from major contradictions.

(ii) P.Ws. 4 and 8 alleged to have seen the accused dragging the deceased at about 12:00 noon and the dead body was recovered after mid-night. In view of such time gap, no reliance can be placed on the last seen theory introduced by the prosecution through P.Ws. 4 and 8.

(iii) The prosecution has not been able to establish the disclosure made by the appellant and leading to recovery of the wearing apparels (saree) of the deceased said to have been made at his instance under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

(iv) The weapon of offence, i.e., 'Kati' said to have been recovered from the house of the accused was not sent for chemical examination and no oral or do