On appeal under Section 302 IPC, the High Court upheld the conviction against an assault charge based on corroborated eyewitness testimony and objective evidence including weapon discovery. The fine was set aside due to prolonged custody, and premature release was recommended.
Conviction confirmed; fine set aside; premature release recommended.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA ; CUTTACK
JCRLA NO.64 0F 2006
From the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.6.2006 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bonai in S.T. Case No.23/50 of 2004.
----------Bunda Munda … Appellant Versus State of Orissa … Respondent ----------For Appellant : Ms. Meena Kumar Dash For Respondent : Sk. Zafrulla, Addl. Standing Counsel.
------------ P R E S E N T :
MR. JUSTICE S.K.MISHRA AND MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 17th February, 2021
S.K.Mishra,J . In this appeal, the sole appellant-Bunda Munda has
challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.6.2006 for the offence under Section 302
2
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “Penal Code” for brevity) passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Bonai in S.T. Case No.23/50 of 2004. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
at about 7.00 P.M. when the informant Rupa Munda (P.W.6) returned to his house, his wife Masali Munda informed him that in the evening at about 5 P.M. while she (Masali Munda) along with Gahma Munda (deceased) and one Mahajana Munda (P.W.2) were sitting on their Varandah, at that time the accused (younger brother of deceased) being armed with Dauli (M.O.III), came there and assaulted his brother Gahma Munda (deceased) repeatedly on his head and leg as a result of which the deceased fell down with profuse bleeding injury and died on the spot. Hearing this incident from Masali Munda, the informant went to the spot and found the deceased lying dead and out of fear, he left the spot with his wife Masali
3
and stayed in his brother-in-law’s house in the night and on the next day on 14.9.2003 morning, he reported the fact to the villagers and lodged F.I.R. in the Loira Police Station orally which was reduced into writing by the I.O. (P.W.7). Thereafter, the O.I.C. registered P.S. case No.42/2003 and took up investigation of the case.
4
sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
5
(I) The death of the deceased is definitely homicidal, caused by assault to his head and leg by means of a sharp cutting weapon like that of a Dauli (M.O.III).
(II) The evidence of P.W.2, Mahajan Munda, is clear about the assault made on the deceased by the appellant by means of a sharp cutting Dauli (M.O.III). His evidence does not suffer from any kind of embellishment or contradiction. This Court comes to the conclusion that the reliance on P.W.2 by the learned Trial Judge is correct.
6
(III) The evidence of the solitary eye witness, P.W.2, gains support from other objective circumstances in this case. They are:-
7
beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Bonai has not committed any error by convicting the appellant. This is also not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the appellant gave two blows on the head and two blows on the leg of the deceased by means of a sharp cutting Dauli (M.O.III) and there is not even a suggestion from the side of the defence that there was any quarrel preceding the assault on the deceased. So, we confirm the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
of the opinion that the fine of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) imposed upon the appellant should be set aside as the appellant is in custody for more than seventeen years. So, the fine imposed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Bonai is hereby set aside.
8
up the case of the prisoner-appellant and examine if he is
entitled to be so released or not.
The JCRLA is dismissed.
T.C.Rs. be returned to the lower court immediately.
.….………..…..
S.K.Mishra, J
Savitri Ratho,J.
I agree.
………………….
Savitri Ratho, J
Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated 17th February, 2021 / A.K.Behera .
9
10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be upheld considering the testimony of a solitary eyewitness corroborated by objective material.
Whether the fine imposed on the appellant should be maintained given his long period of incarceration since the crime.
Whether this case is fit for premature release under the existing law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bunda Munda
State of Orissa
S.K.Mishra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
