MUKUND @ KUNDU MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUKUND @ Kundu Mishra and Deva @ Dev Kumar, the appellants before us, were put up for trial before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, to answer charges under Section 449, 394/397 and 302/34 IPC. The charges were based on the allegations that in the night intervening January 17 and 18, 1994 they trespassed into the residential house of Anuj Prasad Dubey, committed murders of his wife and their two children and looted their ornaments, other valuable articles and cash. On conclusion of the trial the learned Judge found them guilty of all the above charges and accordingly convicted them. For the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC both of them were sentenced to death and, for the other convictions, to different terms of rigorous imprisonment. Against their convictions and sentences they preferred individual appeals which were heard by the High Court along with the reference made by the learned Judge under Section 366 Cr.P.C. In disposing of them by a common judgment the High Court dismissed their appeals and confirmed the death sentences. Hence, these appeals by special leave.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is as under:

(3.) THAT Sarita and her two children met with homicidal death as alleged by the prosecution stands proved by overwhelming evidence on record. Apart from the evidence of the neighbours of Dubeys, namely, Sohan Lal Dixit (PW -1), Kumari Shradhdha Dixit (PW -6), Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh (PW -7) and Smt. Shailja Singh (PW -8), who testified about having seen the three members of the family lying dead with injuries on their persons in the afternoon of January 18, 1994, there is the evidence of Mr. R.K. Raj (PW -11), the Investigation Officer who held inquest and Dr. S.K. Chandel (PW -3), who held the autopsies. The doctor found an incised wound on the neck of Sarita with all the vessels cut; multiple bruises on the throat of Jyoti with hy oid bone fractured; and an incised wound in the middle of front portion of neck of Deepak. He opined that all the injuries he found on the persons of the three deceased were ante -mortem and homicidal in nature. Indeed, we find this part of the prosecution case was not seriously challenged during the trial.