RABI @ KHAGESWAR MAHAKUD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned judgment dated 21.3.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No.88 of 1998 the appellants each of the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C.; and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months, for the offence under Section 201 read with 34 I.P.C.

(2.) ALLEGATION in the case relate to commission of murder of deceased Chhedananda and disposed of his dead body in the jungle to cause disappearance of evidence. Appellant Rabi @ Khageswar is deceased's step -brother. P.W.3 is their father. Deceased was aged about 12 years. Occurrence took place in between 20.10.1997 to 1.11.1997.

(3.) PROSECUTION case is that about 20 days prior to the occurrence there was dispute between appellant Rabi and deceased's mother in connection sharing of lands. However, the dispute was settled by the villagers. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence while the deceased was working in the hotel of appellant Parsuram @ Kunda Singh, appellants committed his murder and disposed of the dead body. In spite of search, deceased's parents could not trace the deceased. However, few days after the occurrence, a KANTHAWALA (nomadic quilt maker) came across the skeletal remains of the dead body, a pant, a shirt, and some hairs etc. while tending to his goat in the jungle. Being informed by the KANTHAWALA deceased's parents and other villagers went to the jungle and identified the skeletal remains from the pant and shirt to be that of the deceased. P.W.1, Surpanch of the village lodged written report at Talsara Police Station upon which the case was registered and investigation was taken up by P.W.11. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted against the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 I.P.C.