KAIRA MUNDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kaira Munda, who is presently interned in Sundargarh Jail, has filed this appeal questioning legality of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh.

(2.) The background facts as depicted by the prosecution are to the following effect : On 19-6-1986 in the afternoon one Pandu Munda (here in after referred to as 'deceased') and his wife Sankari Mundani (P.W. 2) took shelter in the verandah of Chakra Munda (P.W. 11) as it was raining. At the relevant point of time Chakra's wife Bangia alias Lalmani (P.W.10) was also present. The accused and his wife had already been there. Accused called the deceased and his wife to come inside the house. Since it was raining, P.W. 2 went out for arranging an umbralla and P. W.11 went out to bring rice at the request of his wife (P.W. 10). Suddenly the accused dealt blows on the deceased with a Bujia (M.O. I) causing bleeding injuries on various parts of his body including his head. The accused immediately fled away and immediately his wife also ran away. On hearing the cry for help by P.W. 10, P.W. 11 appeared and in the meantime P.W. 2 also returned. Information was lodged with the Officer-in-charge of K. Balang Polic Station, investigation was undertaken and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC).

(3.) To further its case the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. P.W. 10 is the eye-witness while P.W. 11 is the post-occurrence witness, who immediately arrived on hearing the cry for help by his wife P.W. 10. One other witness was held vital to the prosecution case, that is P.W. 8. The evidence of this witness was to the effect that about a month prior to the incident the accused stated before him that the deceased was having amorous relationship with his wife and he had once tried to kill him, when he found him in a compromising position with his wife. Though he had shot an arrow, luckily the deceased survived. Thereafter the deceased and the accused's wife had gone out for about two weeks. The witness stated that after the occurrence the accused came and made a statement before him that he had killed the deceased because of his indecent acts. This was considered to be an extra-judicial confession. The learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 8, came to hold that the prosecution was able to establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt. It was also noted by him that the author of the first information report (P.W. 1) had described in detail the incident as was reported to him by the daughter of the deceased.