STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SUDAM CH MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baripada, acquitting the respondents of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Prosecution case is that one Brundaban Panda of village Sainkula within Khunta Police Station of Mayurbhanj district had three sons named, P.W. 1 Somanath, Jagannath and Bholanath. Sanathan (referred to as the deceased) was gaged two Kiaris of paddy land measuring about Dei (D.W. 1) elder sister of the wife of respondent Sudam. Despite the mortgage, possession of the land was with Brundaban and after him, with his sons named above. In the year 1980, paddy crops had been raised on the land in question by P.W. 1 and his brothers. On 19-7-80 at about 8.30 a.m. P.W. 1 and his brothers with the deceased and two labouers, P.W. 4 and another, came to the land the deceased was standing on the ridge. The three brothers were engaged inside the field itself. At that time, the respondents armed with lathis and followed by 10 to 12 persons, all of whom were similarly armed, arrived near the land. Respondent, Sudam enquired as to why they were engaged in an agricultural operation. P.W. 1 and the deceased said that they were ploughing their own land and that respondent Sudam had nothing to do with it. Inevitably an altercation took place during which respondent Sins dealt a lathi blow on the vertex and respondent Sudam dealt another lathi blow on the right side of the head of the deceased resulting in bleeding injuries. He fell down on the land. Respondent Sudam ran away and while respondent Sins attempted to assault others, P.W. 1 and his brothers snatched away the lathi from him. The persons who were following the respondents also left. Deceased Sanatan was carried to Khunta Public Health Centre where he was given treatment and as is condition became serious, he was removed to the Headquarters Hospital, Baripada where he succumbed to the injuries on 23-7-80. Information sent by the Medical Officer, Khunta Public Health Centre on 19-7-1980 about the injuries on the deceased and information sent through the Headquarters Hospital, Baripada about his death on 23-7-1980 were obviously treated as First Information Report and investigation commenced. Ultimately, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondents for having committed an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) During trial, the respondents, took the plea that Brundatan Panda sold the two Kiaris of land in favour of Sabitrimani Dei (D. W. 1) under a registered sale deed in which P.W. 1 himself acted as an identifier. After the sale, possession of the land was delivered in favour of respondent Sudam who accepted the same on behalf of his sister-in-law, D.W. 1. After the sale, respondent, Sudam was in possession thereof all through. In the year 1980 he had raised paddy crops on the land and by the time the occurrence took place weeding operation was already over. On receiving information that P.W. 1, his brothers, the deceased and their labourers were reploughing the land, both the respondents came to protest, but both of them were assaulted by the prosecution, party for which they received injuries. They lodged First Information Report on the basis of which a counter case was initiated against P. W. 1, his brothers and the labourers, According to them, a false case was brought against them.