MAKA MUNDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Here is one of the many cases one comes across where the prosecution seeks to build its case on an extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused for commission of an offence of murder. The appellant is alleged to has killed Sombari to be referred to hereinafter as Tthe deceased by shooting an arrow with the intention of causing her death on October 24, 1980 and the reason was said to be a previous quarrel between the appellant and the deceased of which there was paucity of evidence and the vague evidence in this regard of the husband of the deceased (P.W. 1) had not received corroboration from the evidence of any other co-villager. While P. W. 1 and his wife (deceased) were sleeping on the land. P.W. 1 Nos roused from sleep by a cry raised by the deceased that she had been shot at by an arrow. P.W. 1 saw that an arrow had stuck to the chest of the deceased and she succumbed to the injury. Owing to fear for his own life, P. W. 1 left the spot, remained in the jungle and on the day following, informed the co-villagers who came to the scene of attack and saw the dead body of the deceased tying with the arrow (M.O. 1) sticking to her chest Sometime in the evening. PW. 1 accompanied by the Grama Rakshi (not examined), went to the police station and lodged the first information report (Ext. 5) without naming anyone as the culprit, but suspecting the appellant and Sonia Munda as they had previous enmity with him and his wife, as stated therein which could not constitute substantive evidence. Investigation followed, witnesses were examined and the dead body was sent for autopsy. The statement of the appellant led to the discovery of an araow (M.O. II) and a Bira (M.O. III) from the house of the appellant. On the completion of investigation, a chargesheet was placed and the appellant was prosecuted.

(2.) As has been submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel for both the sides, but or the extra- judicial confession, there was no other evidence pointing to the guilt of the appellant. Miss Mira Ghosh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the evidence with regard to the extrajudicial confession did not deserve credence and ought not to have been accepted. Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, the learned - Additional Government Advocate, has contended that the order of conviction is well founded.

(3.) The recovery of M.Os. 2 and 3 from the house of the appellant, even accepting that it had been made consequent upon the statement made by the appellant and on prosecution by him, would not be of any help to the prosecution as the evidence would clearly indicate that the tribal people like the appellant used to keep bows and arrows in their houses. The seizures of the other two articles could not also, in any manner, further the case of the prosecution. There could be no doubt from the medical evidence that the deceased had died a homicidal death and that it had been caused by M.O. IV. There was, however, no evidence about the ownership of M. 0. IV and as would appear, the investigating agency had not directed the investigation to find out as to who the owner was.