NITYANANDA MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, in sessions Trial No.141 of 1983. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 1984 are the four accused persons who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The State is the appellant in the Government Appeal assailing the order of acquittal in respect of 9 other accused persons.

(2.) 13 accused persons stood charged under Section 302/ 149, Indian Penal Code, for having formed an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object to commit murder of Tani Panda and they were also charged under Section 302/ 34, Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that Tani Panda was murdered in furtherance of their common intention. All of then stood charged also under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, and accused Hadibandhu alone was charged under Section 341, Indian Penal Code, for having wrongfully restrained the deceased Tani Panda.

(3.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that a Board of Trustees was managing the affairs of the Deity Sri Lokanath in Puri Town. One Shri Shibananda Saraswati was the Managing Trustee. The deceased Tani Panda was the power-of-attorney holder of the Managing Trustee. The accused persons except accused Kela Bhoi are the Sevaks of the Deity. The Sevaks formed a Mijjogsevait and misappropriated the income of the Deity. Being aggrieved by the activities of the Sevaks, the Managing Trustee as well as the Power-of Attorney holder Tani Panda filed objections before the Endowment Commissioner. As the sevaks had locked up the office room of the Deity, the Managing Trustee had filed a petition before the Endowment Commissioner on 4-3-1983. The said Endowment Commissioner had passed an order on 7-3-1983 authorising the Endowment Inspector, Puri, to break open the lock after taking necessary police help and to prepare an inventory of the articles inside the office room. In pursuance of the said order, the Endowment Inspector (P.W.6) on 8-3-1983 decided to break open the lock and to prepare an inventory. He accordingly went to the Officer-In-charge of Puri Town Police Station and requested for police help. P.Ws. 2 to 4 were then sent on duty. At 4.30 p.m. on 8th of March, 1983, the Endowment Inspector (P.W.6) arrived at the main gate of Sri Lokanath Temple. The Sevak accused persons were then present and they abused the Inspector and also threatened him with dire consequences if he would proceed to break open the lock and prepare an inventory. The police force (P.Ws. 2 to 4) who were present there could not control the situation. In the meantime, deceased Tani Panda and his son (P.W. 1) arrived near the temple in a rickshaw. Seeing Tani Panda coming on a rickshaw, the accused-Sevaks rushed towards him and tried to assault him. He then tried to run away on the rickshaw. But he was prevented and the rickshaw was prevented from moving. When the Sevaks encircled the rickshaw, the son (P.W. 1) got down and ran to a nearby tamarind tree. The rickshaw with the deceased could move a few cubits in spite of resistance offered by the accused Sevaks and then the deceased was pulled down from the rickshaw. Accused Kela who had his house nearby then ran to his house and brought a bundle of weapons. The accused persons then started indiscriminately assaulting the deceased Tani Panda with the weapons and then ran away from the place. The deceased was lying injured in a pool of blood. Immediately thereafter another son of the deceased (P.W.7) and the brother (P.W.8) arrived at the scene of occurrence and they made arrangement for carrying the injured to the hospital. The deceased died at the hospital at 7.15 p.m. P.W. 1, the son, who had come to the spot with the deceased reported the occurrence at the police station at 6 p.m. which was treated as F.I.R. and the police then started investigation. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed and on being committed, the accused persons stood their trial for the offences as already stated.