PRAFULLA ALIAS MANGULU PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Prafulla @ Mangulu Pradhan has called in question the validity, legality and propriety of the order of his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') for committing the murder of Nabaghan Bisoi and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, in S.C. No. 23 of 2001 (S.C. No. 85 of 2001 GDC).

(2.) THE skeletal picture of the prosecution story, as revealed during trial, is that on 18.8.2000 at about 2.00 A.M., the de facto complainant Khali Bisoi (P.W. 2) of village Banaraghunathpur lodged a report at Kabisurya Nagar Police station vide Ext. 22 stating that his son Nabaghan Bisoi (deceased) was working at Surat along with other villagers and relatives. All of them decided to construct a Gram Devati Temple in the village by collecting subscriptions out of their income. Somehow or other, a dispute arose amongst them at Surat, which could be solved there. Notwithstanding such settlement, there was ill feeling brewing between the deceased on one hand and the other villagers on the other, for which the deceased along with his family members came back to his village. Later on, the appellant and others also came back. As there was bitter feeling among themselves on the collection of subscription, the other group were looking for an opportunity to attack the deceased Nabaghan. On 17.8.2000 at about 6.00 P.M., while the informant was sitting on the village Mandap, his son Nabaghan passed through the said Mandap to attend the call of nature. At that juncture, the appellant with his associates, namely, Gandhia Pradhan, Bhogi Pradhan, Trinath Pradhan, Jogi Pradhan, Sankar Pradhan, Narasingh Pradhan and Dukhi Pradhan, being armed with deadly weapons, such as, lathies, crowbar, kati, stone, etc., formed an unlawful assembly and proceeded towards the place where the deceased Nabaghan had gone to answer the call of nature. It is alleged that the appellant and his associates assaulted the, deceased causing severe bleeding injuries atf over his body. They also assaulted him by stone. The informant and his daughter in law (wife of the deceased) tried to rescue the deceased, but the accused persons assaulted them too causing grievous hurt. The deceased was shifted to his house where he was found dead. The de facto complainant informed about the death of the deceased to his relatives and reported the matter at Kabisuryanagar police station. On the basis of such report, a case against the appellant and his associates was registered under Sections 147/148/323/325/302/149, IPC and the O.I.C. of Kabisuryanagar P.S. (P.W. 11) sprang into action. In course of investigation, he visited the spot, recorded the statement of witnesses, seized the blood stained earth and sample earth, held inquest over the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination, seized the blood stained wearing apparels of the informant and arrested the appellant and the other accused persons (since acquitted). The appellant while in police custody gave recovery of a 'kati', which was seized under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. A crowbar was also seized from accused Bhogi Pradhan under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. After receipt of the postmortem report, the I.O. seized the wearing apparels of the deceased as well as the accused persons and also collected the nail clippings of the accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and the other accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kodala, who committed them to the Court of Session to face trial. It may be stated here that by order of the learned Magistrate, the seized articles were sent for chemical examination and Serologist's report.

(3.) TO prove its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the wife and father respectively of the deceased. P.W. 2 is also the informant. P.W. 3 is an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 4 is an eye witness and also a witness to the seizure. P.W. 5 is the Constable who had guarded the dead body and accompanied the dead body to the P.H.C. for post mortem examination. P.W. 6 is the Constable to the seizure of the wearing apparels. P.W. 7 is the doctor who examined the injured (P.Ws. 1 and 2). P.W. 8 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body. P.W. 9 is a deed writer. P.W. 10 is an eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W. 11 is the investigating Officer.