STATE Vs. BHUNDA @ MANGAL SARDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard and the judgment is as follows:

(2.) To substantiate the charge under Sec. 302, Indian Penal Code prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence that (i) the accused had a grudge against the deceased for the latter refusing to part with his ration card (of essential commodities), (ii) on the date of occurrence while the deceased was tending cattle near the house of the accused, the latter called the former to his house, (iii) some time after going into the house of the accused, the deceased shouted for help and witnesses rushing to the spot saw the accused running away with the axe M.O.I and the deceased lying injured with bleeding from the head, (iv) the accused went and confined himself in the house of his brother -in -law Hiralal Sardar and did not respond to the call of the villagers or the witnesses and it is only the police, after their arrival, could bring him out of the room, (v) the accused was possessing the weapon of offence, i.e., M.O.I, till then and it was seized from his possession, (vi) his wearing apparel such as towel stained with blood together with blood -stained earth, sample earth and bloodstained clothing of the deceased were sent for chemical examination and serological test to trace origin and the group of the blood, (vii) the blood group of the accused is 'B' whereas blood group of deceased is 'O' and from the seized blood -stained articles including napkin of the accused 'O' group blood was found, (viii) the deceased made dying declaration before witnesses, viz., his father Chandra Mohan Mahanta (P.W.4) and Suratha Chandra Mahanta (P.W.6), (ix) the doctor (P.W.10) while conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased suffered homicidal death due to ante -mortem injuries.

(3.) In all, prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Amongst them, P.W. 9 is Dr. Usharani Das who attended to the deceased as a patient and P.W. 10 is Dr. Sudhiranjan Dash who conducted the post -mortem examination and proved the post -mortem report Ext. 18 besides the opinion report Ext. 19. P.W. 1 is the informant. P. Ws.1 to 6 are the witnesses to the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the deceased entering into the house of the accused and sustaining injuries there and the accused running away and from his possession the weapon of offence being recovered together with blood -stained cloth. P. Ws 7 and 8 are two police officers who participated in the investigation.