THAKURA MUNDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant from inside the jail has called in question the Judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T case No. 36/2004 convicting him for offence under Section 304I, I.P.C. &, sentencing imprisonment for a period of 10 years him to undergo rigorous.

(2.) Shortly stated, the prosecution case is that on 26.10.2003 deceased Banku Munda had gone to the house of his father in law and his wife Nirsha had also accompanied him to her father "â„¢s house. The further case of the prosecution is that Banku returned house in the evening with injuries on his person and disclosed to have been assaulted by his parent in laws and shortly thereafter lost his consciousness. The disclosure is said to have been made by the deceased on return to his own village Tando from his father in law "â„¢s house situated at village Dumuria and that is before his elder brother when it was around 8.00 P.M. Samara Munda, the brother of the deceased and others took Banku to the hospital for treatment where he was declared dead. Information was lodged by that Samara at the concerned police station which triggered investigation. The case having been initially registered against the parent in laws of the deceased, later on charge sheet was submitted also against the wife of the deceased. All of them faced the trial for commission of offence under Sections 302/34, IPC.

(3.) During trial prosecution all together examined 7 witnesses and proved some documents such as F.I.R Ext. 3, inquest report Ext.4, Post Mortem report Ext. 5, C.E report Ext.12 over and above the seizure list relating to seizure of incriminating articles. P.W.1 is the informant and younger brother of the deceased, before whom the deceased is said to have made the declaration shortly prior to his death as regard authorship of the injuries on his person. P.W. 2 is a neighbour of Appellant. Mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W. 3. Gramarakhi of the village before whom P.W.1 had first orally reported the matter has been examined as P.W. 5. The doctor conducting autopsy has been examined as P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 is the investigating officer of this case. P.W.4 is a witness to the seizure of that piece of wood and wearing apparels of the deceased. Defence has examined none despite of opportunity being given.