RITTA MUNDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution story as we find from the record would relate back to 3anuary 18, 2005, few days after the Tsunami disaster. Narayan Singh, the victim was residing along with his family members at his house. Ritta Munda, the appellant was also staying with him. Narayan engaged him as a daily labourer in his field. On the fateful day, Narayan's family was away from the house. He was alone in the house in the company of Ritta. THEy were seen together in the said house in the evening on that day. THE witnesses saw Narayan inside the house, where as Ritta was cutting firewood outside. At 8 p.m P.W. 15 (Prema Kumari) served food to (Narayan and left the house, when she saw Ritta was entering into the house. Next day morning, Narayan was found dead. Ritta was nowhere to be seen. After a chase he was arrested from the jungle after seven days. At least four witnesses said that he left the village late at night along with a suitcase and a Ballam (sphere). While confronted he told "I am going away. I may not live with Narayan who used to quarrel with roe frequency. I have killed him with Kulhadi(axe)".

(2.) THE prosecution examined 31 witnesses whereas Ritta and his coaccused Bishram were examined by the court under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. THE defence did not adduce any evidence. THE learned Sessions Judge upon considering the evidence came to the following conclusion:-

(3.) OPPOSING the appeal Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the discrepancies so highlighted by Mrs. Nag were minor in nature. The witnesses were rustic villagers. They deposed after about sixteen months of the incident. Hence, such discrepancies were usual. In any event, even if those discrepancies were given credence, the concrete evidence, so found by the learned trial judge, completing the chain of events would be so apparent that the order of conviction would be found to be just that did not deserve interference by the court of appeal. Mr. Mandal contended that the victim was found alive lastly in the company of the accused. The accused was duty bound to explain as to how the incident occurred. Soon after the incident the accused fled away from the scene until he was arrested after seven days, that too, after a long chase. Hence, his conduct was also abnormal raising a pointer to him that he could not and did not explain during his examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this regard, Mr. Mandal relied on section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Mr. Mandal prayed for dismissal of the appeal.