THUKUDA KHADIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two accused appellants Thukuda Khudia and Solomen Munda were convicted on a charge of murdering a number of Muslims during the communal disturbance that took place in March 1964 in Sundargarh district and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur-Sunda garh along with them 20 others were also charged and they were acquitted.

(2.) ON March 25, 1964, at about 4 P M. at village Kamakalli near Champajharan R. S. 4 miles from Banki P S. of Sundargarh District there were communal disturbances, In the course of which some members of the Muslim community are stated to have been killed by a mob which included the two accused-appellants. It is said that they had killed 5 Muslims on a paddy field nearabout the village. The following day, namely, March 26, 1964, P. W. 12 Prahlad Harijan a Police constable filed at the Banki Police Station 3 First Information Report which was recorded by the Officer-in-charge Investigation was taken up by the officer-incharge of Banki Police station P. W 13 Giridhari Pujhari; he remained in charge of the investigation till April 12. 1964 on which date he handed over the investigation to another Police Officer Anadaram Patra P. W, 14. P. W 13 however did not examine any of the witnesses P. W 14 visited the spot on the same day he took over charge from P. W. 13 and from subsequent days he examined the eyewitnesses p. W 4, 5. 6 and 7. After investigation the two accused-appellants along with the other accused persons were charged, committed, and sent up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who convicted and sentenced them and acquitted the others as aforesaid

(3.) THE prosecution case is mainly based on the statements of the four eve-witnesses P. Ws 4, 5, 6 and 7, made before the Committing Magistrate; all those statements were tendered and admitted in evidence under Section 288. Criminal procedure Code But at the sessions trial all these witnesses went back on what they had stated before the Committing Magistrate The settled position in law if that where a witness has resiled from his evidence in the committing court and the evidence has been brought in under Section 288 Criminal Procedure Code, then, before such evidence is accepted satisfaction about it, being true and reliable is necessary. In most caset this satisfaction can come only if there is such support in extrinsic evidence as to give a reasonable indication that not only what is said about the occurrence in general but also what is said against the particular accused sought to be Implicated in the crime is true. If there be a case where even without such extrinsic support the Judge of facts, after bearing in mind the intrinsic weakness of the evidence, in that two different statements on oath have been made, is satisfied that the evidence is true and can be safely relied upon, the judge will be failing in his duty not to do so, Sharnappa v. State of Maharashtra, air 1964 SC 1357.