BUDHURAM MUNDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from the jail has been directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him thereunder to undergo in imprisonment for life after accepting the case of the prosecution on the hasis of the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 6, the witnesses to the occurrence, supported by that of the Medical Officer (P.W. 12), who had conducted the autopsy, that on January 13, 1980, the appellant committed the .murder of Mara Munda hereinafter to be described as the deceased by means of an axe (M.O. I) with which be hit the neck of the deceased and by means of a Bars; (M.O. II) with which he hit the back portion of the deceased near the neck causing external and consequential internal injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, when the deceased went and approached the appellant, who had been dressing a tree which had been cut from the ridge III between the lands of the appellant and the deceased, to part with a portion thereof, as agreed to by the father of the appellant (P.W.6).

(2.) We have heard Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Panigrahi the learned Additional Government Advocate. It admits of no doubt from the evidence of P.W. 12. who had noticed two external injuries which had resulted in. internal injuries, that death in the instant case was homicidal in nature.

(3.) P.Ws. 2 and 3 had accompanied the deceased to the spot when he approached the appellant to part with a portion of the cut tree. P.Ws. 2 and 3 bad testified that they had been the appellant dealing first a blow on the neck of the deceased by means of M.O. I as a result of which the latter fell down and thereafter assaulting the deceased by means of M.O. II which resulted in the instantaneous death of the deceased. The same was the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5. the father and the brother respectively of the deceased. No doubt, P.Ws. 4 and 5 are toe close relations of the deceased, but the evidence of relations of the deceased is to be examined with care and is not to be rejected merely on the ground of relationship with the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 had found assurance from, the evidence of no other person than the fathu of the appellant who had been examined by the prosecution as P. W. 6. He had also stated in his evidence about the assault on the deceased by the appellant by means of MOs. I and II resulting in the death of the deceased. The seizure of M.Os. I and II from the spot by the Investigating Officer would lend assurance to the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 6 with regard to the occurrence. The medical evidence fully supported the ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on a careful consideration of the evidence and without attaching undue importance to some discrepancies in the oral testimony with regard to the minor details, has accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 6 arid in our view, justifiably so.