KAMALU HANTAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present criminal appeal, the Appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 22.03.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in S.C. No. 56 of 1999 (S.C.58 of 1997 of Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore) convicting them under Sections 324/114 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to undergo R.I. for two months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.1996 at 5.30 PM informant Surendra Rauta with his labour Gopinath Mandi was going to bring paddy bundles from their field when he found the wife of Appellant No. 1 Kamulu Hantal and daughter of Sadhu Hantal, namely, Bimala catching fish at RAJA BANDHA BILLO. The informant asked them not to catch the fish as he had given the ridge on the said land. Meanwhile, accused Sadhu Hantal came there and quarrelled with the informant. His younger brother Kamulu Hantal also came and joined Sadhu Hantal. Just then Lambodhar Rauta, the middle brother of the informant, who was returning home for taking meal, came to the spot, separated them and asked them to go to Arjuna Sahani, the village Sarpanch, who had permitted them to give ridge on the said land for catching fish. All on a sudden accused Sadhu Hantal became angry, brought out a knife from his waist and stabbed on the chest of Lambodhar Rauta. The informant immediately came to his rescue. At that juncture, Bimala, the daughter of Sadhu Hantal, brought a knife and handed over the same to Kamulu Hantal, the younger brother of Sadhu Hantal, who gave two knife blows on the left side back of Lambodhar Rauta. On receiving the blows dealt by Sadhu Hantal and Kamulu Hantal, Lambodhar Raut fell down on the ground and died. Thereafter, the dead-body was removed from the place of occurrence by the witnesses present there. On receipt of the FIR police registered a case, proceeded with the investigation and after its completion filed charge-sheet against the present Appellants and accused Sadhu Hantal under Sections 302/34 IPC.

(3.) The defence plea is one of complete denial. The specific case of the accused persons is that the informant party had set ablazed their house. Since they had initiated criminal proceedings against the informant party, they have been falsely implicated in this case.