RABI MUNDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails the order of conviction recorded against him under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed against him there under to undergo imprisonment for life by the Court of Session which has accepted the case of the prosecution that in the afternoon of April 20, 1981 while the appellant and Ramia Munda (to be described hereinafter as the deceased) were talking on the verandah of the house of the appellant and P.W. 3; a relation of the appellant, was resting nearby, the appellant by means of an axe (M. 0.1) assaulted the deceased to death and then dragged the dead body of the deceased and threw it in a water nala nearby. We have heard Mr. Mohanty appearing for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) The doctor (P.W. 1) who had conducted the autopsy had noticed two injuries including internal injuries on the person of the deceased, but owing to a high state of decomposition, he was not in a position to opine as to whether the injuries were ante-mortem or post-mortem in nature. There was, however, the clear and cogent evidence of a disinterested witness, namely. P. W. 3, that while he was having an afternoon nap on the verandah of the house of the appellant and the appellant and the deceased were talking, a cry of agony raised by the deceased roused him from sleep and he noticed the deceased ling in a pool of blood and the appellant with a blood stained axe in his hands nearby and thereafter, the appellant dragged the dead body of the deceased and threw it in the nala nearby. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness to discredit his testimony and the trial court bas rightly accepted it, as besides having intrinsic worth, his evidence found assurance from the other evidence on which reliance had been placed by the prosecution.

(3.) P.W. 3 had immediately gone from the scene of attack and informed P.W. 4, the Pradhan of the village, about the occurrence. He had named the appellant as the assailant of the deceased. In company with P.Ws. 2 and 5, P.W. 4 went to the spot and they had seen stains of blood on the verandah and wall of the house of the appellant and the deceased lying dead in the nala. First information report was lodged by P. W. 2. While the first informant and the persons accompanying him were at the police station, the appellant appeared at the police station and produced M.0.1 which was seized by the Officer-incharge (P.W. 6). On chemical and serological test, human blood was detected in M.O.I. The Officer-in-charge (P. W. 6) had noticed marks of dragging from the place of attack on the deceased to the nala and bad noticed a trail of blood-marks. The earth seized from the spot also contained human blood on serological test. These are telling circumstances against the appellant corroborating the evidence of P.W. 3.