Research › Browse › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 315 (ORI)

TANGURU MUNDA v. STATE OF ORISSA

1994-10-27

D.M.PATNAIK, S.K.MOHANTY

body1994
S. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal from jail is directed against the judgment of conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 302, I. P. C. and sentence of imprisonment for life passed thereunder. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief is that on 7. 12. 1989 in the evening hours the appellant killed Braja Taisam in his Kuma (temporary hut) inside paddy field by means of the hammer M. O. 1. ( 3 ) THE appellant took the plea or denial. ( 4 ) P. W. 4, The Assistant Surgeon, Sub-divisional Hospital, Champua, conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 8. 1. 2. 1989 at 3 P. M. and found one lacerated injury measuring 11/2 x 11/2 on the left ear with exposition of the cartilage and haematoma 3 x 21/2 on the left temporal and occipital region continuing from the above injury. On dissection he found haematoma on the scalp corresponding to the haematoma found externally, congestion of membranes, a lacerated injury 2 x I with effusion of blood over temporal and occipital lobe of brain and compound fracture over the left temporal and occipital bone in his opinion all the injuries were ante mortem in nature, death was homicidal and cause of death was due to the injury to the head. He has categorically opined that the lacerated injury over the temporal lobe of the brain was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. Considering the medical evidence it has been rightly held that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. ( 5 ) THE appellant has been connected with the crime of murder on the basis of the extrajudicial confession made by him before P. W. 2 in the same night at about 8 P. M. and the fact that the Lungi which the appellant was wearing was found stained with human blood of the same group as that of the deceased. ( 6 ) P W. 2 has stated that the appellant was his domestic servant. According to him on 7. 12. 1989 at about 8 P. M. while he was at his house, the appellant came shouting that he had killed Braja Taisamin his Kuma. Hearing this P. W. 2 immediately caught hold of the appellant and detained him. He found stains of blood on the Lungi which he was wearing. According to him on 7. 12. 1989 at about 8 P. M. while he was at his house, the appellant came shouting that he had killed Braja Taisamin his Kuma. Hearing this P. W. 2 immediately caught hold of the appellant and detained him. He found stains of blood on the Lungi which he was wearing. P. W. 2 then took the appellant to P. W. 3, his maternal uncle. There many villagers including the Grama Rakshi arrived and the Rakshi took the appellant to his custody. P. W. 2 further claims that then he along with others proceeded to the Kuma situate inside paddy field and found Braja Taisam lying dead with bleeding injuries, a lantern burning there and the hammer M. O. 1 lying nearby. P. W. 2 then Came to the out post, 30 K. Ms. away and lodged his report which was ultimately treated as F. I. R. in the case. In cross-examination P. W. 2 has clarified that the appellant took Handia everyday, that on the evening of fateful day in spite of request of P. W. 2 appellant took two glasses of Handia and went away and returning at 8 P. M. made the confessional statement as above. There is no infirmity in the evidence of P. W. 2 and no circumstance has been brought on record for doubting the genuineness of the confessional statement and that the appellant made the same voluntarily. The F. I. R. in the case was lodged very promptly and it fully corroborates the version of P. W. 2 in court. The A. S. I. in charge of the out post before whom the F. I. R. was lodged by P. W. 2 came to the village and at 6. 30 A. M. seized the Lungi which the appellant was wearing as per the seizure list Ext. 6. He then visited the spot where the dead body was lying and there from along with other articles seized the iron hammer stained with blood. The aforesaid Lungi and hammer along with sample earth seized from the spot were sent for chemical examination and all of them were found stained with human blood of A group. It is apparent from the above evidence that blood of the same group as that of the deceased was found stained in the Lungi which the appellant was wearing. The aforesaid Lungi and hammer along with sample earth seized from the spot were sent for chemical examination and all of them were found stained with human blood of A group. It is apparent from the above evidence that blood of the same group as that of the deceased was found stained in the Lungi which the appellant was wearing. ( 7 ) ON a consideration of the above evidence, it is found that besides the extrajudicial confession there are other materials pointing to the guilt of the appellant. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution has not proved the motive on the part of the appellant in committing the crime and since, as revealed from the evidence, the appellant had taken Handia in the evening hours it cannot be said that the appellant had the required intention or knowledge so as to make him liable for the offence of murder. Law is well settled that absence of motive is normally not fatal to the prosecution because it is not always possible for the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence the motive which impelled an accused to commit a crime. It is well known that Handia is a light intoxicant and in the evening the appellant had consumed only two glasses of Handia. From this fact absence of intention or knowledge for committing the crime cannot be inferred. Accepting the opinion of the doctor that M. O. 1. hammer could cause the injuries noticed by him and was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death along with the fact that the assault was on the vital part like head causing compound fracture and other internal injuries as above, we are of the view that the appellant committed the act with the intention of causing the death of Braja Taisam. He has, therefore, been rightly convicted for the offence under section 302, I. P. C. The sentence imposed being the minimum prescribed by law, does not call for any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.