STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GANGADHAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Government Appeal the State has challenged the validity, propriety and also the legality of the order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge, Bhubaneswar in Sessions Trial No. 13/86 of 1983 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 325/34, I.P.C. for commission of murder of Narottam Routray.

(2.) The essential facts leading to this appeal are as follows : On 13.1.82 at about 9.30 A.M. while deceased Narottam Routray and his nephew Bichitrananda Routray were digging a water channel the respondent Gangadhar Das @ Bhalu severely protested their action. There was exchange of hot words whereafter respondent Gangadhar along with respondent Kailash Chandra Das and their associates came with lathis to the place of occurrence. Respondent Gangadhar is said to have dealt a lathi blow on the head of Narottam followed by another lathi blow by Kailash as a result of which Narottam lost his sense and fell down on the ground with bleeding injuries. The other respondents indiscriminately assaulted with lathis and Tada (in Oriya) on the head of P.W. 3 Bichitrananda Routray, who protested their high-handed action, as result of which he too lost his sense. Both Narottam and Bichitrananda were taken home in a senseless condition where after they were taken to Primary health Centre at Bhingharpur. P.W. 1, brother of the deceased Narottam having learnt about the incident lodged a report at Balianta police station. After providing first-aid in Bhingharpur P.H.C. the injured Narottam and Bichitrananda were referred to Balkati Hospital. It was noticed that by then Narottam was dead but Bichitrananda was provided sufficient treatment, and therefore, he recouped from the injuries. On the basis of the report by P.W. 1, a case was registered against the respondents under Sections 302/34 and 325/34. I.P.C. against all the respondents.

(3.) Although 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, but mainly it relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5. P.W. I, who was the de-facto complainant in this case claimed to be a post-occurrence witness and so also P.W. 2, the son of deceased Narottam. From the evidence of P.W. 2 it appears that he had seen the First part of the prosecution story, but that is not so much significant while considering the complicity of the respondents in this case. P.Ws. 7 and 8 were Medical Officers attached to Balkati Hospital. P.W. 11 was the I.O. in this case, who as usual investigated into the prosecution case, recorded the statements of the witnesses, held inquest over the dead-body of Narottam, arrested the respondents, seized some of the weapons and the garments of the deceased, prepared the spot map and after closure of investigation placed the charge-sheet against the respondents.