GHANA MUNDA AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Both the Appellants have preferred this Jail Criminal Appeal as against the order of conviction under Sec. 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced of imprisonment for life passed against them by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No. 612 of 1997/2 of 1998 arising out of G.R. Case No. 435 of 1996 of the Court of J.M.F.C, Jajpur Road. As it reveals from the lower Court record Dilika Munda is the deceased. He had borrowed a bullock cart from the accused persons and could not be able to redeliver the same because of its damage condition and therefore on the demand of the accused persons when the deceased delivered a new bullock cart, the accused persons demanded delivery of the new as well as old bullock carts. The dispute arose there from when deceased refused to part with the old bullock cart. Thereafter accused persons brought allegations against the deceased for applying sorcery on them but in that respect they were proved to be false before the Panchayat and accordingly they were condemned by the Panch. For the said reasons, accused persons bore a grudge against the deceased. It is further case of the prosecution that on 9.10.1996 the deceased together with P.W. 2 - Kanda Haibru and P.W. 3 - Ratha Munda had gone to irrigate his cultivable land and at about 7 A.M. while they were returning P.W. 3 had gone to case out and the P.W. 2 was together with the deceased. At that time both the accused persons being variously armed including Farsa and hatchet asked P.W. 2 to stand on a side or else to sustain injuries. P.W. 2 out of fear followed their instructions and stood at a side and witnessed the occurrence of dealing of blows by both the accused persons inflicting cut injuries and ultimately severing heads from the trunk of the deceased. Both the accused persons thereafter carried the severed head to the police station and produced the same before the police officer in -charge of the police station. P. Ws.2 and 3 respectively intimated the incident to the inmates of the house of the deceased and other villagers and P.W.l, i.e., the son of the deceased lodged the FIR and set the law into motion.

(3.) In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) held inquest on the trunk portion of the dead body of the deceased under inquest report Ext. 2. A separate inquest report Ext. 9 was prepared when the accused persons produced the head at the police station. Witnesses to the inquest identified the head and the trunk as that of the deceased and made necessary endorsements therein. In course of the investigation, the seized weapon of offence, blood stained wearing apparels, nail clippings of the accused collected in course of investigation were seized and sent to the chemical analyst and serologist under forwarding letter Ext. 13. All such articles were seized under different seizure lists and on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. While denying the charge, accused persons claimed for Trial. To substantiate the charge against the accused persons, prosecution relied on the evidence of 13 witnesses and the documents marked Exts.1 to 13 series. In reply the accused persons examined one witness i.e. D.W.1 -Satari Kayam.