The appellants, namely, Mana Munda and Sambari Munda, who are husband and wife, faced trial in Sessions Trial Case No. 105 of 2009 [Sessions Trial Case No. 132 of 2009] before the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, for committing the murder of one Radhi Munda of village Kendughati, who was the sister-in-law of appellant Mana, and for attempting to commit the murder of her stepson, Tuna Munda. By judgment dated 29.10.2009, the trial Court convicted both the appellants under Sections 341, 506, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of IPC, RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo further RI for one year under Section 307 of IPC, RI for one year under Section 506 of IPC and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo further RI for two years under Section 302 of IPC. However, both the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 294 of IPC while appellant Sambari was also acquitted of the charge under Section 109 of IPC.

Be it noted that the appeal in respect of appellant No. Sambari Munda has abated in view of her death. Accordingly, the present appeal is confined to appellant Mana Munda.

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows. On 18.08.2008, at about 8.00 to 9.00 a.m., the informant, Tuna Munda, asked Mana Munda, his elder paternal uncle, for his father's share in the land belonging to his grandfather. The informant's parents had died when he was very young and his stepmother, Radhi Munda (the deceased), the first wife of his father and issueless, had raised him and maintained him. Mana, who resided in the adjoining house, was in possession of the entire land. Despite repeated demands, Mana and his wife, Sambari, refused to give him his share and threatened to kill him if he persisted. On the above date, when the informant reiterated his demand, both appellants became angry. Sambari caught hold of the informant by his shirt and dragged him towards their house, while Mana came with a budia (axe) and was about to assault him. At that time, the deceased intervened and stood in front of Tuna to protect him. It is stated that Sambari caught hold of the deceased and exhorted Mana to assault her, whereupon Mana dealt two blows with budia on her head. The deceased fell down and died at the spot. The appellants thereafter threw the budia near the dead body and fled from the spot. Due to absence of any conveyance on the following morning, i.e., 19.08.2008 Tuna, accompanied by one Makuru Giri, went to the Banshapal Outpost and lodged FIR. On the basis of the FIR, Nayakote P.S. Case No.32 of 2008 was registered under Sections 302/34 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them under Sections 341/109/506/294/307/302/34 IPC.

3. The defence of the accused persons was one of complete denial and false implication.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses and exhibited twelve documents. That apart, prosecution also proved one material object. Defence, on the other hand, did not adduce any evidence.

5. After analyzing the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the prosecution established the charges under Sections 341, 506, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC against both the appellants. It principally relied on the evidence of P.W.1, Tuna, who was treated as an eyewitness and the evidence of P.W.2, who had been informed about the occurrence by P.W.1 soon thereafter. It also placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who had reached the spot after the occurrence and seen the dead body, the medical evidence of P.W.5 regarding the homicidal death of the deceased and the capability of the seized budia to cause the injuries as well as the evidence of P.W.6, the IO. It also relied on the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, regarding the presence of human blood on th