Decided on March 23,1978

The State Of Orissa Appellant
Buda Muduli Respondents


K.B. Panda, J. - (1.) THE Respondent Budu Muduli was facing trial under Section 302, Indian Penal Code on the allegation of having intentionally caused the death of his maternal uncle Sania Muduli. The learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore acquitted him of the charge, but convicted him under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code giving rise to this appeal by the State of Orissa.
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is this: On 1 -10 -1974, at about 7 a. m., the deceased was digging turmeric while his stepson Mangala Muduli (P.W. 7) was standing in front of their house adjoining the village road keeping he -calf for castration. The Respondent came by that way in an intoxicated state making hulla. The deceased asked the Respondent not to create hulla lest the he -calf might run a way due to fright. At this the Respondent got annoyed and gave kicks and slaps to Mangala Muduli. When the deceased protested against this high -handed action; the Respondent, it is alleged, gave out a threat to both of them saying to wait till be would return from his home. In fact he proceeded towards his home. At this, the deceased and his step -son (P.W. 7) 10 apprehended danger from the Respondent and got into their house and bolted the door from inside. True to the threat the Respondent arrived there with an axe, bow and arrows and attempted to force open the door striking it with the axe. However, the door did not yield. So he cut a hole in the wall that was made of twigs and entering into the room shot an arrow at the deceased and decamped. The arrow bit the left side chest of the deceased as a result of which he died instantaneously. At that time, most of the villagers were out except Soma Kirsani (P.W. 9) and the stepson of the deceased P.W. 7). P.W. 7 guarded the dead body for the whole night and the next day went to village Sambalpur and reported the matter to Ghadua Badnaik (P.W. 3) and Lachhmi Muduli (P.W. 4) who came to the spot. When questioned the Respondent admitted to have killed the deceased by an arrow shot. Then these people held a Panchayat where one Lachhmi Kirsani (P.W. 6) removed the arrow from the chest of the deceased. Thereafter the dead body and the arrow were removed to the P.S. where Lachhmi Kirsani P.W. 6) lodged information about the incident (Ex. 4) resulting in the charge sheet and trial of the accused under Section 302, Indian Penal Code with the result as aforesaid. The Respondent denied having killed the deceased with an arrow and stated that the case has been falsely started against him.
(3.) THE prosecution examined ten witnesses of whom p. w. 1 is the doctor and P.Ws. 7 and 8 are the two eye -witnesses to the occurrence. P.WS. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are witnesses to the extrajudicial confession of the Respondent.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.