SUBASH CHANDRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four condemned accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') have preferred the present criminal appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkangiri, in S.C. No. 71 of 1999 convicting them for committing a heinous and shocking cold blooded murder of an innocent kid of four years' old after kidnapping him and screening the evidence of murder in furtherance of their common intention punishable under Ss.364, 302 and 201 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.') and sentencing them to capital punishment and referring the same to this Court for confirmation as required under S. 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr. P.C.'). Thus the criminal appeal as well as the death reference having given rise to common questions of fact and law were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Concisely put, case of the prosecution is that after Ranjeet Mohanty alias Rana (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was found missing from the village street of Balimela on 30-4-1997 at about 10 a.m., his uncle, Chita Ranjan Mohanty (the informant), and others searched for him but in vain for which a missing report was lodged in Orkel Police Station on the following afternoon. In the early morning of 1-5-1997 while the informant was going towards the pond in the backyard of his house to attend call of nature, he found a person coming towards the pond carrying something on his shoulder. When the said man came nearer, the informant identified him to be the appellant-Narayan Mazumdar, who was throwing a deadbody by the side of the pond. At that juncture, the informant caught hold of him and raised hallah, hearing which people from the neighbourhood gathered there and found that the deadbody thrown by Narayan Mazumdar was that of the deceased, who was missing since one day. On being asked, the appellant-Narayan Mazumdar disclosed that he alone had notmurdered the child, some others also were involved in the complicity of the felony and he was ready to disclose their names and identify them. Accordingly, the appellant-Narayan Mazumdar led the informant and others to the house of the appellant-Kunja Ramana, who along with his servants, seeing Narayan Mazumdar in the company of informant and others abused them and threatened them to assault holding axe and lathis. So the informant and others returned to the village but they along with some more villagers again proceeded to the house of the appellant-Kunja Ramana. On their arrival at the house of Kunja Ramana, they found the nails and the hair clippings of the deceased there. The appellant-Narayan Mazumdar also disclosed that in the said place the nails, hairs and tongue of the deceased were cut and Simachal Padhi, a Tantrik, offered the prayer. It was also disclosed by him that after the puja, the deceased was taken in a jeep to the house of the appellant-Subash Panda where the appellants and Simachal Padhi killed him throttling his neck and catching hold of his hands and legs. He also revealed that Simachal Padhi, Kunja Raman and Subash Panda promised him to pay Rs. 25,000/- for disposal of the deadbody. After Narayan Mazumdar made the extra-judicial confession as above, to the villagers, the latter along with the appellant-Narayan Mazumdar went to Subash Panda's house where they found the other appellants and also the Tantrik-Simachal Padhi, who, on being asked, told that he sacrificed the deceased to whom he could give "Jeevan Daan" within three hours. Thereafter with the deadbody of the deceased all of them came to the house of the informant where the Tantrik performed puja. But having failed to give "Jeevan Daan" to the deceased, he tried to flee away from the said house. At that juncture the informant and others caught hold of the Tantrik, who was then handed over to the police. Accordingly, an information under Ext. 1 was lodged in Orkel Police Station by the informant. During investigation, inquest over the dead body was held and an inquest report under Ext. 2 was prepared. Then for post-mortem examination, the dead-body was sent to the doctor who in his turn submitted the post-mortem report under Ext. 6. The Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, made seizure of incriminating articles and on completion of investigation, he laid charge-sheet against the appellants and other absconded accused. As the accused-Tantrik Simachal Padhi was done to death, as we are told at the Bar, the case of the appellants was split up and they were put upon trial before the learned trial Judge ultimately.

(3.) The accused persons who pleaded innocence have taken the plea of complete denial of the allegations levelled against them and also their false implication in this case under Ss. 364, 302 and 201 read with S. 34, I.P.C.