BHARAT MURMU AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No. 134 of 1994 convicting the Appellants for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further convicting Appellant Bharat Murmu for commission of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and directing both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 19.3.1994 at about 8 P.M. the informant Susanta Kumar Naik, P.W. 1 came out of his house located at village Baliabadi and found the deceased Sai Soren lying dead in front of the house of Karmi Murmu, P.W. 8. He had sustained severe injuries on his belly and chest. The villagers namely, Laxman Soren (P.W. 2), Karmi Murmu (P.W.8), Raghunath Marandi, Chunu Soren and others were near the dead body. He was informed that on the same day preceding the occurrence, the Appellants Sakila Murmu, Laxman Murmu and Bharat Murmu came near the deity's house of the village and started quarreling with the snake -charmers and also threatened them. The deceased Sai Soren and his brother Baya Soren, P.W. 4 dissuaded the Appellants not to quarrel with the snake -charmers but the Appellants got enraged and chased the deceased as well as P.W. 4 being armed with Bhujali, knife and iron rod. P.W. 4 escaped by entering into his house but the Appellants caught hold of the deceased in front of the house of Karmi Murmu, P.W. 8. The Appellants assaulted the deceased by means of knife and Bhujali and such injuries caused instantaneous death of the deceased. F.I.R. having been lodged on these allegations by P.W.1 at the police station, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of offence under Section 302/34 as well as 307 I.P.C.

(3.) SHRI Mohapatra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that though P.W.4 has been accepted by the trial Court as an eye -witness to the occurrence, his evidence clearly shows that he had not witnessed to the assault on the deceased and, therefore could not be accepted as an eye witness to the occurrence. According to Shri Mohapatra, the only other circumstance available against the Appellants is that there was a quarrel between the Appellants and the deceased. There being no other evidence on record to connect the Appellants with the commission of the alleged offence, the Appellants could not have been convicted for commission of the offences alleged. In the alternative, the learned Counsel further submitted that the Appellants are tribes and ordinarily found to be short tempered. The Appellants had a quarrel with the deceased and his brother P.W.4 which gave rise to grave and sudden provocation resulting in death of the deceased. If this part of the argument is accepted, the Appellants could only be convicted for commission of offence under Section 304, Part -I, I.P.C. So far as offence under Section 307 I.P.C. relating to Appellant No. 1 Bharat Murmu is concerned, it was contended by the learned Counsel that there is absolutely no evidence to show that Appellant No. 1 had assaulted Laxman Soren.