RAJA @ RAJENDRA MUNDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and the judgment is as follows.

(2.) ON 16.02.1993 at about 6.30 p.m. there was a quarrel between Gora Munda, the deceased, and the accused/Appellant. The deceased is the husband of Basumati (P.W.1). Accused is the brother of P.W.1. The quarrel ensued when the accused protested against the cow of the deceased damaging a portion of the thatch roof of his house. Altercation between the two enraged the accused. He entered into the house, returned with an axe and dealt three random blows on the deceased which resulted in three incised wounds on the left side chest, left parietal region and right parietal region. Deceased sustained the aforesaid injuries and died instantaneously. P.W.1 failed in her attempt to intervene and she also sustained injury in course of that intervention. In proof of injury on her body, the doctor (P.W.\9) has proved the injury certificate Ext. 8. After the occurrence, the accused made extra judicial confession voluntarily before his father (P.W.2) and Ors. i.e., P.W.3 -Sukura Munda and P.W.5 -Duryodhan Apat. On F.I.R. Ext.1 being lodged by P.W.1 a routine investigation was undertaken and completed and in view of the postmortem report Ext. 4 that the deceased suffered a homicidal death, the accused faced the trial for the offence under read with the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt by dangerous weapon to P.W.1. Before the Trial Court; though P.W.1 did not allege against the accused about inflicting injuries to the deceased, but she stated about the quarrel between the accused and her husband. On the other hand, the above noted witnesses prove the extra judicial confession made by the accused. The weapon of offence which had been seized was examined by the doctor (P.W.6) who conducted the post -mortem examination. The doctor (P.W.6) opined that the deceased suffered homicidal death as a result of the three external injuries together with corresponding internal injuries and that M.O.I is the weapon of offence. No cross -examination was made to the doctor to discredit that version. Such, evidence on record proves homicidal death of the deceased and in view of that the Learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the extra judicial confession found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) AS noted above, the Learned Sessions Judge after taking stock of the aforesaid fact situation found that the conduct of P.W.1 in supporting her brother, i.e., the accused is of no avail on the face of the extra judicial confession of the accused having been proved by the father of the accused together with other close relatives. Learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the confessional statement before the father and other relatives was a spontaneous and voluntary one and in absence of any coercion or compulsion, there is nothing to disbelieve the extra judicial confession and the evidentiary value thereof. Learned Sessions Judge also recorded the finding and rightly so that such evidence is sufficient to prove that the accused is the author of the injuries because of which the deceased suffered homicidal death. After scanning the evidence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction. Accordingly, the order of conviction is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.