STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RAMA MUDULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against an order of the Sessions Judge, Koraput acquitting the respondent who was tried on a charge under Section 302 I. P. C. on the allegation that on the night of 14 -4 -1969 he committed the murder of his two brothers Donguru Muduli and Bingu Muduli.

(2.) THE accused and the deceased are residents of Mouza Tota Ambaguda within the Koraput Police Station. Long before the occurrence they had separated from one another and had divided their family lands. They were also living in three different houses. The two deceased brothers were living in two adjoining houses on the southern row of the Sahi, while the house of the accused is situated in the northern row just in front of the house of his deceased brother Donguru Muduli. In spite of the partition of the lands, the two deceased brothers were constantly quarrelling with the accused demading from the latter some more lands for them and in fact a day or two before the occurrence, the accused gave them a piece of land from out of his share. This obviously satisfied the two brothers for the time being because P. W. 4, the widow of the deceased Bingu Muduli has stated that the two deceased brothers celebrated the occasion. But on Saturday preceding the occurrence both the brothers again approached the accused demanding some more lands which on being refused by the latter, there was again a quarrel between the accused on one side and the two other brothers on the other. Again we get it from P. W. 4 that the two brothers threatened the accused to drive him away from the village if he did not comply with the demand. On the morning following this occurrence, the two deceased brothers were found lying dead on the road -one in front of his own house and the other in front of the house of the accused. Soon thereafter the accused himself went to the police station carrying a blood -stained Tangia, and it is on the basis of information lodged by him that the F. I.R. was drawn up and he was arrested. The Investigating Officer came to the spot and sent the dead bodies for post -mortem examination. The doctor P. W. 6 who conducted the autopsy found on each of the dead bodies an incised wound which according to him caused their death. He opined that the injuries could be caused by the Tangia M. O. 1 which the accused himself had produced at the Police Station. During investigation, a confessional statement made by the accused (Ext. 4) was recorded by a First Class Magistrate. In due course, the accused was put on his trial on a charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.

(3.) P . Ws. 4 and 5, who are the widows of the two deceased persons, and P. Ws. 7, 8 and 9, three of the villagers deposed that the accused had confessed before them that he had killed his brothers. But relying on the confessional statement Ext. 4 made by the accused and the evidence of the doctor P. W. 6 as regards the location of the injuries and the circumstances in which those injuries could have been caused, learned Sessions Judge, while believing that the two deceased persons died as a result of the injuries caused to them by the accused, held that the latter in inflicting the injuries acted in exercise of his right of private defence. He, therefore, acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal by the State.