MATHU MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against one common judgment passed on 16/2/2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in two trials in ST No. 60 of 2012 and ST No. 187 of 2013 arising out of one transaction convicting the appellant Mathu Majhi for offences punishable U/Ss.302/201 of IPC and rest 34 appellants for offences punishable U/Ss.201/149 of IPC.

(2.) Since these two appeals arise out of one common judgment in two trials for one transaction, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) On the basis of some information, an inquiry was conducted by Sub-Inspector of police, Bamunigaon namely Anudhatta Parichha in reference to Station Diary Entry (SDE) No. 143 dtd. 8/4/2010 and in the course of such inquiry, it was unraveled that one organization name and styled as "Lok Sangram Manch Sangathan" asserted its presence in bordering area of Gajapati District and the members were professing the ideals of Maoist. It was further learnt in such inquiry that around 3 to 4 years back, one Gudrisa Majhi, Liasa Majhi, Tohali Mallick and Gaya Gandasa Majhi of village Gadama had died out of some unknown disease, but the local people blamed Tupi Patamajhi (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") for the death of above four persons by practicing witchcraft and accordingly, on 7/4/2010, a meeting was called on this issue, where the deceased and his family members as well as 400 to 500 peoples of different villages such as Gudrisahi, Mundasahi, Badasahi, Srakigudi, Badaripi, Indra Colony and Baghapada attended the meeting. In the meeting, some of the accused persons including appellants Johan Muthamajhi and Kalisa @ Binod Kandha had forced the deceased and his family members to pay a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the village committee and threatened to kill the deceased, if the amount is not paid, but the deceased by pleading his innocence, expressed his inability to pay such a hefty amount. On this reply of the deceased, the accused persons became infuriated and killed the deceased by cutting his throat and immediately cremated the dead body at the spot and took oath not to disclose the matter anywhere and warned the family members not to report the matter before police.