SONU MUNDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS jail criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 154/21 of 1998 -99 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence i.e., 19.03.1998, all the co -sharers of the disputed land "KHAJILOR ATA" had gone there for an amicable partition. The appellant Sonu Munda being the son of Pandab Munda belonged to one branch. Informant Chandra Munda (P.W.1) and deceased Rabi Munda being the sons of Laxman Munda, and Janardan Munda (P.W.2), Purna Chandra Munda (P.W.3) and Basanta Munda (P.W.10) being the sons of Raghu Munda belonged to other two branches. They had taken with them Shankar Munda (P.W.4) of their Sahi as Bhadralok. P.W.1 went to the disputed land later on with Shiba Dhal, Madhab Dhal and Chinta Dehury (P.W.6) of Chasa Sahi. When he arrived there, he found his brothers quarreling with the appellant (Sonu Munda) over the question of allotment of share and there was exchange of hot words between his deceased brother (Rabi Munda) and the appellant. At that time, the appellant gave a blow by the sharp side of the axe, which he was holding, on the back side neck of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injury. Other co -sharers present there chased the appellant but could not catch hold of him. Thinking his brother (deceased) to be alive, P.W.1 pulled the axe sticking to his neck but found that he was already dead. Immediately, he went to the police station with P.W.2 and lodged an oral report. The O.I.C., Naktideul P.S. registered the case and proceeded with the investigation. During the course of investigation, the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent it for postmortem examination, seized the weapon of offence and the wearing apparels of the deceased as well as of the accused, and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant.

(3.) THE prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses including the I.O. and doctor and exhibited 10 documents. The defence has examined none on its behalf.