STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BIDIKA RANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal dated 21.9.85 passed by the learned Assistant Session Judge, Rayagada in Sessions Case No. 07 of 1995 acquitting the respondent of the charges under Section 304/307 of IPC.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in short is that on 28.2.1995 evening the informant P.W. 1 namely Bidika Bulaka, Maniaka Tili, Bidika Sonu and Bidika Matia (deceased) were going for collection of subscription for "Dharti Puja", a tribal function held amongst Adibasi Community of the District of Rayagada. At that time, the respondent reached at the place on his way back home from his place of work. It is alleged that he was then holding an axe and went near the persons as above named who were collecting the subscription and asked them as to why they were going for that collection. At this deceased Bidika asked the respondent as to why he was not paying the contribution. It is further stated that then the deceased pushed the respondent by means of a lathi and that lathi was then snatched away by the respondent. So there was scuffle between them and in course of the said scuffle deceased Bidika Matia said to have dealt a lathi blow on the waist of the respondent. The blow being received by the respondent created anger and then it is said that he dealt a tangi blow on the head of the deceased for which deceased Bidika sustained bleeding injury on his head and fell down on the ground. The next morning he was moved to the hospital and the matter was reported to the police. Bidika stayed in the hospital from 2nd March, 1995 to 13th April, 1995 as an indoor patient. P.W. 10 the doctor, discharged from the hospital though the condition was not free from being critical. On 28.4.1995 Bidika died at home.

(3.) Plea of the defence is one of complete denial. The Respondent has specifically stated that while deceased dealt the blow of his waist, he let lose the tangia that he was holding to ward off the blow but it hit the deceased on his head causing injury. It has alternatively been stated that he had no intention to give the blow as it had fallen and the same cannot be attributed to have been dealt knowingly that it would hit on the head of the deceased. The blow being given after the lathi blow was received by the respondent, it is said to be in exercise of right of private defence.