BAIRAGI MUNDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been entertained on the basis of a petition for appeal sent by the convict (appellant) incarcerated in District Jail, Keonjhar, through the Superintendent of Jail. In this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.12.2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Champua in S.T. Case No. 25/26 of 2004-01 State Vs. Bairagi Munda convicting him under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life.

(2.) The F.I.R. story in brief is that on 20.5.2000, the informant (Guru Munda) while getting ready to go to his paddy field heard the cries of his niece, namely, Sukanti Munda, in her court-yard and she was screaming, "AYA APUNI GAYA ANA" (in Munda language), which means "My Father is Dead". Hearing her scream, the informant went to the spot and saw his elder brother, namely, Tumuru Munda, lying dead in a pool of blood in the court-yard of his house with injuries caused by piercing of three arrows on his chest. Seeing such incident, the informant come back to his house and informed the incident to his father, namely, Jatia Munda. Later, on the same day, the villagers belonging to Munda Community and Bhuyan Community convened a meeting where the Ward Members, namely, Sambhu Naik, Debara Naik, Gura Naik, Jhadeswar Pradhan, Bhaktabandhu Dehury, Sukura Munda and Butu Munda and others were present. In the said meeting, the appellant (Bairagi Munda) was also present. At the commencement of the meeting, Debara Naik asked the gathering to disclose who had committed the crime saying that the sin could not be concealed; the truth would come out one day or other. Hearing this, the appellant confessed his guilt and said that he had shot arrows at the deceased as he had gone to his house in the previous night to have illicit relation with his mother and when the appellant saw the deceased, he left the place. So, with anger, in the mid night, the appellant shot three arrows at him when the deceased was sleeping, which caused his death. The appellant also led the gathering to the spot. After confessing the guilt before the gathering, the appellant left the place saying that he would inform the incident to Police. The Ward Members of the village, namely, Sambhu Nayak and Daba Munda also accompanied the appellant and left the place. As the appellant had gone to the Police Station to report the incident, the informant did not lodge any report on that date. When the police did not reach the village till the day following the occurrence, the informant went to the Police Station along with Gura Nayak and Jhadeswar Pradhan and lodged the report orally, which was reduced to writing. On receiving such report, the police registered Joda P.S. Case No. 70 dated 21.5.2000 under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and took up investigation. The Investigating Officer visited the spot same day, i.e. on 21.5.2000, examined the witnesses present there and made inquest over the dead-body of the deceased (Tumuru Munda) in presence of the witnesses. Thereafter, the dead-body with pierced arrows was sent to the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Champua by the Investigating Officer for post-mortem. He also prepared a spot map and obtained sample and blood stained earth as well as an axe (M.O. VIII) from the spot. After post-mortem, the Investigating Officer seized the wearing apparels of the deceased and three numbers of arrows (M.Os.I to III) on 22.5.2000 on production by the constable accompanying the dead-body. On 26.5.2000, the Investigating Officer arrested the appellant and examined him. The appellant while in police custody confessed his guilt and led the Investigating Officer to recover the Bow with which he had shot the arrows at the deceased, in presence of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Sec. 302 I.P.C. against the appellant in G.R. Case No. 136 of 2000 of the court of learned J.M.F.C, Barbil. The case was committed to the Court of Session on 5.2.2001 and the appellant faced the trial.

(3.) The plea of the appellant was of complete denial of his involvement in the alleged occurrence and he pleaded his innocence.