SONYA MUDULI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has been convicted under Section 302, T.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, for having caused the death of his father Ghasi Muduli, in the first quarter of the night of 22 -2 -1959.

(2.) AN admitted fact in the case is that Ghasi Muduli, the deceased, had four sons including the Appellant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and another, and these brothers were staying separately, the deceased staying with P.W. 2. The Appellant and P.W. 2 had joint cultivation and two days prior to the occurrence, P.W. 2 had sold some produce of the land for Rs. 9/ -, out of which while he appropriated Rs.5/ -, he gave to the Appellant Rs. 4/ -. Another admitted fact in the case is that in the evening of the date of occurrence, which coincided with Magha Parba, the Appellant and P.W. 2 took Landa (a sort of intoxicating liquor) at the house of P.W. 1. By the by, the house of the Appellant is about 20 yards from the house of P.W. 1, whereas the house of P.W. 2 is about 15 yards from the house of P.W. 1 and is almost of the same distance from the house of the Appellant.

(3.) IN the trial stage, P.W. 1 resiled from his story in the F.I.R. and sought to say that he had no information from P.W. 2 about the Appellant having killed his father. P.W. 2 also completely exculpated the Appellant in saying that there was no quarrel between him and the Appellant far from any chase by the Appellant with an axe, and his story was that while he was taking his meal inside his house, he heard his father 's groanings and coming out he found that his father had been murdered by somebody. The trial court did not accept the truth of the alleged extra -judicial confession sought to be established through P.W. 4. The medical evidence was that M.O.I. the axe recovered from the thatch of the Appellant on a clue given by the Appellant, was a likely instrument in respect of the fatal injury of the deceased. The chemical examiner 's report established that the axe had stains of human blood. The Appellant admitted at the trial that on a clue given by him, the said axe had been recovered from his thatch by the police, and he also admitted to have kept that axe there. According to his defence, on hearing the cries of his father, he ran to the scene to find that his father was in a dying condition and the axe was lying near him, and he went a way with that axe and kept it concealed in his thatch with a view to produce the same before the police. Thus, the medical evidence, the serologist's opinion and the admission of the Appellant make it clear that the weapon, with which the murder was most likely committed, was recovered from the possession of the Appellant and his explanation for such possession is as I have indicated above. This is one of the strong circumstantial finks of evidence in the case.