MANGAL HANSADA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Poverty in a tribal house-hold has resulted in an unfortunate incident of the eldest of the four brothers killing the youngest brother after a quarrel over two door-leaves on Nov. 20, 1978. The appellant, it was alleged, and his brother Bhima (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') had a quarrel on a festive day, when the tribal people were enjoying life after taking Handia, over the demand of the deceased for the door-leaves. The appellant gave out that the door-leaves would be divided into four pieces so that each of the four brothers would get a share. Saying so, he brought out the two door-leaves (M.O.II and III) and threw them away. The appellant then asked his sister (P.W.2) to bring an axe, but P.W.2 did not comply with this request. The appellant then brought out a sharp cutting instrument described as Kati by P.W.2 and Katuri by the other two eye-witnesses (P.Ws.3 and 4) from inside his house and gave out that he would cut bamboos and prepare the door leaves. He then dealt a blow by means of the instrument he was holding on the neck of the deceased which resulted in his instantaneous death. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, the witnesses to the occurrence and rejecting the evidence with regard to the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before the Grama Rakshi (P.W.6) as inadmissible in evidence being a confessional statement made to a police officer and the evidence of P.W.5 also with regard to an extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before him as unacceptable, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 had found assurance from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.1) who had conducted the autopsy and had noticed two cut injuries on the neck of the deceased causing several internal injuries which could be caused by one stroke with a sharp cutting instrument and the recovery of the Katuri (M.O.I) from inside an Amari bush consequent upon a statement said to have been made by the appellant and held that the charge against him under S.302 of the Penal Code (for short, 'the Code') had been established. The appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. P.Ws.2 to 4 had figured as witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.2, the sister of the appellant and the deceased, P.W.3, widow of the deceased and P.W.4, the brother of the appellant and the deceased, had clearly and categorically testified that the appellant, by means of a cutting instrument, dealt a blow on the neck of the deceased which resulted in his instantaneous death. We have been taken through their evidence and we see no infirmity therein. On a careful consideration of the evidence of these three witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge has accepted their evidence and has held that it was worthy of acceptance. We see no justifiable reason to take a different view. The evidence of these three witnesses did find support in that of the doctor (P.W.1).

(3.) It was in evidence that consequent upon the statement made by the appellant, M.O.I. was recovered from inside an Amari bush in the course of investigation and was seized. While P.W.3 had testified that M.O.I, was the weapon of attack, P.Ws.2 and 4 had asserted that it was not. In this state of evidence, it would not be safe and proper to unreservedly accept the evidence of P.W.3 and not that of P.Ws.2 and 4 and hold that the appellant had killed his brother by means of M.O.I. Even assuming, however, that M.O.I. was not the weapon of attack, it would not be of any consequence and would not affect the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4. It is not necessary in every case that the weapon of attack must have to be recovered in a case of murder and non-recovery of the weapon of attack would not affect the other evidence if found to be reliable and acceptable.