SRINIBASHA BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners herein seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Samal P.S. Case No.137 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1050 of 2020 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M, Talcher, for the offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Sulochana Sahu on 16.07.2020, a case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been registered against the petitioners and some others. The allegation in the FIR, in brief, is that the informant who is the sister of the deceased on getting information of the death of her brother went to her brother's house. Having reached there, she learnt that her brother had been murdered by his wife, daughters and some 4 to 5 outsiders. She further alleged that her sister-in-law and nieces along with some unnamed outsiders had murdered her brother Sunanda Pradhan, who had been suspicious about the character of his wife. Due to such suspicion in the mind of the deceased, the deceased had forbidden his wife and daughters to associate with outsiders. The informant also stated that several FIRs had been lodged in the past, due to such fact, the wife and daughters of the deceased had brought some outsiders who severely assaulted the deceased on his head causing death so that they could freely get associated with those outsiders.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Devashis Panda, submits that none of the witnesses who have been examined have implicated either the petitioners or the others named in the FIR, who are stated to have allegedly participated in the incident of assault on the deceased. It is submitted that it is only on the basis of the statements of the co-accused that the presence of the petitioners is being sought to be established. It is submitted that one of the co-accused, namely, Jhulan @ Jhulu @ Jitendra Sahoo while going to the spot saw that the deceased had locked up his wife and daughters inside the bedroom. On being requested to unlock the door, the deceased did not open the door of the room which triggered the quarrel. The said co-accused stated that they broke open the lock of the door and rescued the wife and daughters of the deceased which infuriated the deceased and a fight ensued between them. He further stated that the deceased attacked them upon which the wife of the deceased, who was holding a baton and his daughters Guni and Basanta were holding sticks, assaulted the deceased all over his body and the petitioners herein and he himself along with other co-accused persons slapped the deceased. He categorically stated that when the deceased was attempting to run away, he was dragged inside the house and his wife being violent, repeatedly dashed her husband's head against the wall causing fatal injury on the head of the deceased which caused profuse bleeding, eventually it led to his death. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that, at best, the allegation against the petitioners herein is that they had dealt some fist blows and slaps on the deceased but did not have the intention to cause the death of the deceased. It was the wife of the deceased, who had in a violent bout of anger, dashed the head of the deceased against the wall which caused fatal head injury resulting in death. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the deceased was a truck driver prone to drunken bouts and was in the habit of assaulting his wife and children which often triggered such fights in the past also. Such fights were very regularly held at commonplace and also in the household of the deceased. It is submitted that the petitioners were only trying to calm down the situation. They happened to be there per chance. In fact, they had no inkling that such a trivial fight would result in death on that fateful day. Even the evidence taken prima facie shows that the entire allegation attributable to the petitioners herein is that they had dealt fist blows and slaps to the deceased which in no manner could have been caused the death of any person in the normal course. On the contrary, the evidence on record unerringly points towards the wife who dealt the fatal injury to the deceased by smashing her head against the wall leading to his death. It is also submitted that the petitioners had no common intention or object to commit any crime as they were only acting as good samaritans by trying to pacify the situation when they saw that the helpless wife and daughters were being harassed by the deceased.