KUMRAM PADIA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant who is an aboriginal Koya, aged twenty years was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of his co -villager Madkami Rama on 31 -3 -1961, and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge of Jeypore.

(2.) IT appears that on. 31 -3 -1961 the Appellant and his father Kamram Bira were somewhat annoyed with Madkami Dewa (p.w. 2) who is the son of the deceased and Madkami Kashi (p.w. 1) and some other persons for having stolen toddy from their tree and also for having stolen the bamboo tube in which toddy used to be kept. There was a quarrel between the parties in the afternoon of that day and again after night fall. It was alleged that p.ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 went to the house of the Appellant's father Kamram Bira for the purpose of settling their dispute. The deceased Madkami Rama also went there. There was an altercation and in the course of that altercation the Appellant's father was alleged to have given a blow with a bow to p.ws. 1 and 2. In the meantime the deceased Madkami Rama, father of Madkami Dewa (p.w. 2) attempted to intervene and lift his son who was injured. Thereupon the Appellant brought a half burnt faggot lying nearby and after extinguishing the fire by rubbing it on the ground, gave a blow on the right side of the forehead of Madkami Rama who immediately fell down unconscious and died soon afterwards.

(3.) AS regards the four eye witnesses, p.ws. 1 and 2 may not be given much importance because their evidence is not clear as to whether they actually saw the Appellant giving the blow to the deceased Madkami Rama. They had themselves received injuries from the Appellants father immediately before and it is very likely that they did not clearly notice the giving of the blow to the deceased by the Appellant. But p.ws. 3 and 4 have given a consistent version by saving that after the assault on p.ws. 1 and 2 by the Appellant's father, the deceased tried to lift his son and was then given a blow in his forehead by the Appellant with a faggot. I am therefore satisfied that it was the Appellant who gave the blow and that there was no right of private defence.