PATAR MUNDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj, Shri A. R. Guru, on the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 353. I. P. C. , and was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C. , but no separate sentences were passed under Sections 324 and 353, I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that the knife (M. O. I.) was to be returned to P. W. 8 and the axe (M. O. II) was to be returned to P. W. 10 after the expiry of the period of appeal if there be no appeal, or after the disposal of the appeal if there be any; and that if P. Ws. 8 and 10 or any of them disliked to take back, they might be forfeited to the State Government. No order was passed with regard to the rifle (M. O. III) for its disposal as it belonged to the Government.

(2.) THE prosecution case is briefly as follows: Shri Nirmal Chandra Patnaik, Sub-Deputy Collector (P. W. 20) was camping in the local school of Erundei village having gone there to distribute Takabi loans. A police force consisting of about four constables were attached to his camp to guard the cash meant for distribution as Takabi loans. P. W. 8 Shaymsudar Rout and P. W. 9 Bhagaban Rout were also there to write out papers-receipts, loan bonds and declarations oh behalf of the illiterate villagers on payment of writing charges. It is stated that on the date of occurrence (16-2-1955) a number of villagers of Kumadabahali under Ghatgan Police station including the appellant had gone there to receive loans; that P. Ws. 8 and 9 prepared the necessary documents for them and also took the thumb impressions of the applicants; that when the appellant was either putting his thumb impression or had just finished, he suddenly picked up the knife (M. O. I.) lying in closed condition by the side of the petition-writer p. W. 8; that when P. W. 8 wanted to take it back it is stated, that the appellant dealt a blow on his cheek which slipped to his shoulder causing a minor injury; and that the appellant ran to one of his co-villagers, namely, Mutu Munda (P. W. 2) after opening the blade and dealt him a stab. Then when his co-villager (P. W. 3) Budhan Munda intervened, he was also given a stab, and then the appellant ran to another co-villager Routa Munda (P. W. 5) and dealt him also a stab. There was a great commotion and confusion and people began to flee away. The appellant also, while running away came across Lalmohan Mahanta (P. W. 14) and dealt him a stab. Then he went on running and met his covillager Lada Munda (P. W. 1) and dealt him also a stab as also Ratha Munda (P. W. 4 ). It is stated, then the appellant met Pallam Kolhani (P. W. 6) near the house of her son-in-law the deceased Lada Munda and dealt her a stab. It is the case of the prosecution that then the appellant chased Leda Munda and that when Leda Munda entered one of his rooms and wanted to shut the door against the appellant, the latter dealt a stab wound to the deceased who fell down at the threshold. Thereupon the appellant threw the knife and brought out an axe from the house of Leda Munda when the constable (P. W. 21) who was chasing the appellant armed with his rifle containing five rounds of ammunition arrived at the place to apprehend the appellant. The appellant rushed at him brandishing his axe notwithstanding the fact that the rifle with its bayonet had been pointed out against him. The constable, it appears fired the rifle, but curiously enough it did not explode. The appellant then aimed a blow with the axe at the constable who caught hold of the appellant, and then charged the appellant with the bayonet which struck the appellant on his chest. The appellant then caught hold of the rifle and though the constable struggled against the appellant, the constable fell down and the rifle went off his hand and the appellant ran away with the rifle leaving the axe in the hand of the constable. It is also the prosecution case that the constable followed the appellant asking him to return the rifle, but the appellant refused saying that unless he was cured of the wound inflicted on him, he would not return the rifle. The constable gave up the chase as it became dark and returned to the School.

(3.) IT is next stated by the prosecution that the appellant returned home with the rifle and told his mother (P. W. 23) and his brother (P. W. 24) in presence of his wife late Mani Kolhani that he had a fight with the constable and was wounded and so he had to snatch away the rifle from the constable; and that he also injured 3 to 4 persons. Then the appellant took only some water, refused to take rice, complained of pain and slept on a charpoy keeping his rifle below it. Next morning, on the asking of the choukidar (P. W. 22), P. W. 24 removed the rifle and gave it to the Chokidar who then apprehended the appellant. The Choukidar tied the appellant with a rope and while the appellant was being taken to the Thana, the Thana Officer (P. W. 26) met them on the way and arrested the appellant.