STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RAMA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application made under Section 439 of the Cade of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the State of Orissa for vacating the order made by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, admitting the opposite parties 1 to 13 to bail pending trial. The opposite parties have been committed to the Court of Session to Stand their trial for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 302/34 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Bail was granted by the learned trial Judge by his order dated 23.3.1972 to 17 accused persons including all the opposite parties in the case. The informant came before this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 55 of 1972 and asked for cancellation of the bail. On 12.5.1972, this Court vacated the order by saying -

(2.) THE prosecution case seems to have been that Biswanath and Deboraj, the two who have been murdered were father and son respectively. Deboraj was proceeding to Jeypore on cycle along with one of the P. Ws. before the committing Court. The 24 accused persons including all the opposite parties who had concealed themselves suddenly appeared. Many of them were armed with deadly sharp cutting weapons. Each of the opposite parties had a lathi in hand. Deboraj was done to death by inflicting blow after blow by various deadly weapons. Each of these opposite parties also gave lathi blows. Having killed Deboraj, they proceeded upto the neighbouring field where Biswanath was busy in cultivating operations. Biswanath was also assaulted fatally in the same manner. Each of the accused persons having a lathi is said to have also inflicted lathi blows. Some of the opposite parties chased some of the prosecution witnesses who were near about while some others threw the broken lathis into the jungle and all the accused persons left in a body. These allegations of the prosecution seem to have been supported by the five witnesses who were examined before the committing Magistrate. P. W. 1 Abhimanyu Pradhan. relation of the Parties has said : -

(3.) WHAT is more surprising to us is that while dealing with the bail matter, the learned Sessions Judge went out of his way to indicate that there could be no conviction under Section 302/149, I. P. C. He was considering the bail matter only and therefore, he had no justification to express himself in such manner. In fact his saying so has in the mean time led to a petition of transfer being filed before this Court and our learned brother Panda. J. by his order dated 21.7.1972 very rightly has directed the transfer of the trial from the Court of this trial Judge to the learned Sessions Judge at Berhampar.