STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RABINDRANATH DALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Orissa under Section 417 (1), Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of acquittal of the respondents who were charged of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada.

(2.) RATHIA and Dukhu (respondent No. 2) were close relations, Dukhu being Rathia's father's brother's son. Rathia's widow, Gurubari (P. W. 10) sold about 3 mans of land for the consideration of Rupees 800/ - to Rabi, the respondent No. 1, on 14.10.1960, by a registered sale deed (Ext. B). The prosecution alleged that no consideration had been paid for the sale and on 9.11.1962, P. W. 10 cancelled that deed of sale. Although the Investigating Officer (P. W. 21) is said to have seized this deed of cancellation, it has not been produced. Gurubari claimed to have remained in possession throughout and under a sale deed dated 1.6.1967, the deceased Kunar Majhi claimed to have purchased 15 gunths out of the same land for a consideration of Rs. 300/ -. This sale deed has also not been produced. On 3.6.1967, at about 6.30 a.m. when Kunar and his son, Sahadeb (P. W. 16) came upon the property for cultivation and manuring, resistance was offered by Dukhu and Rabi (respondents). The prosecution alleged that the two respondents assaulted both the deceased and his son (P. W. 16). The injuries sustained by the deceased proved fatal and he succumbed to them at the hospital. F. I. R. (Ext 14) was lodged at 11.15 a. m. on the same day by P. W. 16. P. W. 21, the Investigating Officer, arrived at the spot at 5.40 a. m. on 4.6.1967. At 8.40 a. m. Dukhu was arrested and by mid -day Rabi was taken into custody. Ultimately the respondents were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial for the offences of murder and assault.

(3.) 21 Witnesses were examined for the prosecution of whom P. Ws. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 came to speak about possession of Gurubari and the deceased, and P. Ws. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 were said to be the eye -witnesses to the occurrence. On an analysis of the evidence the learned Sessions Judge came to hold: -