ANAM PRADHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three appeals arising out of the same judgment and order passed by Mr. J. Tyagi, Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, have been heard together and this judgment shall govern the three appeals. The appellants in the three Criminal Appeals along with fifteen other accused persons stood trial for having committed the offence of rioting being armed with deadly weapons after entering into a conspiracy and for having committed the murder of Dibakar Rout and for causing grievous and simple hurt to some members of the prosecution party. The appellants Brundaban Muduli and Punananda Sahu along with the co -accused Ramakanta Naik (acquitted), stood charged under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), the appellants Kedar Ghadei, Pari Sahu son of Dinabandhu and Sananda Padhan along with the co -accused Anam Padhan stood charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code for committing the murder of Dibakar Rout at Trilochanpur and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 1978 along with sixteen other co -accused persons including the two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 1978 stood charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Code for that murder. Charges had also been framed against some of the appellants and other accused persons under Sections 326, 336 read with Sections 149, 326, 324 and 323 of the Code for causing grievous and simple hurt to some members of the prosecution party.

(2.) WE would now proceed to state the case of the prosecution, Daitari Swain (not examined) of Nabadia had 1.53 acres of land in village Trilochanpur of which 1.07 acres were situated to the western side at a lower level of the Bhit -tarjena Muth. Bhagaban Mohanty (P. W. 3) had been cultivating all the lands of Daitari Swain in this village for about ten years prior to the occurrence as a bhag tenant and had, along with his brother Basudev Mohanty (P. W. 5), raised paddy crops in the year 1976. On 23 -11 -1976, the appellants Punananda Sahu, Nilamani Padhan and Sananda Padhan besides Ananda Padhan removed paddy from a portion of the said land. On the day following, the appellant Brundaban Muduli, co -accused Ramakanta Naik (acquitted) and Mahes -war Mohapatra and Daitari Padhan who were said to be leaders of the Communist Party in that area, were seen proceeding towards village Damapada and at the thrashing floor of the co -accused Bina Padhan (acquitted); the appellants and the other co -accused persons held a meeting and decided to forcibly cut the paddy crops raised by Bhagaban Mohanty (P. W. 3) even at the cost of the lives of persons who might oppose them. Bhagaban Mohanty (P. W. 3) came to know about this and made arrangements to harvest the paddy crops before the appellants and their companions could cut and take away the crops. In the morning of the 25th Nov., 1976, Bhagaban Mohanty (P. W. 3) along with his brother Basudev Mohanty (P, W. 5), Dibakar Rout (deceased), Babaji Gochhayat (P. W. 6), Chandramani Swain (P. W. 8), Prabhakar Rout (P. W. 9), Shyamsundar Behera (P. W. 13), Rajib Gochhayat (P, W. 15), Mandar Swain and some others went to the land and began to harvest 'the paddy crops. After some time, about forty persons including the appellants and the other accused persons who stood trial came in a body being armed with deadly weapons, such as, swords, Bhalas, Tentas and lathis, after breaking the fence, demarcating the Muth from the land and under the instigation of the appellants Brundaban Muduli and Punananda Sahu, besides some others including Ramakanta Naik (acquitted) and Maheshwar Mohapatra (not a co -accused) to bring away the paddy after cutting the heads or sacrificing their heads for the purpose, the other appellants besides the other co -accused persons rushed to the land and while the prosecution party including Bhagaban Mohanty (P. W. 3) and the labourers were leaving the place the appellants Kedar Ghadei, Pari Sahu (son of Dinabandhu) and Sananda besides Ananda Padhan (co -accused person) assaulted Dibakar to death in furtherance of their common intention. Some of the accused persons caused grievous hurt to Prabhakar Rout (P. W. 9) and Makara Behera (P. W. 10) and caused hurt to Bhagaban Mohanty (P. W. 3), Basudev Mohanty (P. W. 5), Babaji Gochhayat (P. W. 6), Chandramani Swain (P. W. 8), Prabhakar Rout (P. W. 9), Makar Behera (P. W. 10), Shyamsundar Behera (P. W. 13), Rajiba Gochhayat (P. W. 15) and Dhuli Sahu (not examined). After committing the murder of Dibakar Rout and causing hurt to many persons of the prosecution party, the appellants and their companions left the place. Chandramani Swain (P. W. 8) removed the Bhala (M.O. I.) sticking to the chest of the deceased Dibakar Rout. The deceased and the injured Prabhakar were taken to the thrashing floor of Dama Mohanty (P. W - 1). Dhruba Charan Biswal (P. W. 4) lodged the written first information report (Ext. 1) with the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police (P. W. 19) of the Ersama Police Station whom he found on his way to the Police Station and investigation followed. Requisitions (Exts. 3/1 to 11/1) for the medical examination of the injured members of the prosecution party and Exts. 12/1 to 18/1 for the medical examination of the injured accused persons, namely, appellants Nilamani Padhan, Pari Sahu, Kedar Ghadei, Judhistir Das and Sananda Padhan were issued. In the meantime, the Medical Officer (P. W. 11) in charge of the Kujang Primary Health Centre found the dead body of Dibakar in the hospital compound where the dead body had been carried and informed the Officer -in -Charge, vide Ext. 20, a written report and he also intimated the same Officer -in -charge, vide Ext. A. intimating that 15 injured persons belonging to different groups had been admitted as indoor patients. The Sub -Inspector of Police (P, W. 12) attached to the Tirtol Police Station, who was at Kujang on that date, proceeded to the dispensary and held inquest over the dead body of Dibakar Rout, vide Ext. 17, the inquest report and sent the dead body to Jagatsinghpur for post -mortem examination. He seized M.O. I., vide Ext. 12 and handed over the documents to the Officer -in -charge (P. W.. 18) of the Ersama Police Station who took charge of the investigation from P.W. 19 and on its completion, submitted a charge -sheet against the appellants and the other accused persons.

(3.) TO bring home the charges to the appellants and the other co -accused persons, the prosecution had examined nineteen witnesses. Two witnesses had been examined for the defence. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants Brundaban Muduli and Punananda Sahu guilty under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Code, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. He found the appellants Kedar Ghadei, Pari Sahu (son of Dinabandhu Sahu) and Sananda Padhan guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code for committing the murder of Dibakar Rout in furtherance of their common intention, convicted them and sentenced them thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life. The ten appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 1978 and the two appellants Brundaban Muduli and Punananda Sahu in Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 1978 were found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Code for the murder of Dibakar Rout in furtherance of their common object and were convicted thereunder. While the ten appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 1978 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, no separate sentence was passed thereunder against the appellants Brundaban Muduli and Punananda Sahu who had already been sentenced for their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Code to undergo imprisonment for life. All the appellants were convicted Under Section 148 of the Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellants Nilamani Padhan, Kalandi Sahu, Kelu Sahu, Jagu Das and Sananda Padhan were convicted under Section 324 of the Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellants Bholi Padhan, Fakir Jena, Judistir Das, Duruju Behera and Niranjan Behra were convicted under Section 323 of the Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused persons were acquitted of the other charges including the charge of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of the Code. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed that the terms of imprisonment passed against the appellants would run concurrently,