STATE Vs. RAMCHANDRA BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Ramchandra Bhoi has been convicted under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and sentenced to death. He has also been convicted under Section 120-B, I. P. C. and Section 25 (a) of the Arms Act, 1950 and sentenced to R. I. for five years and 1 year respectively. Though he was convicted under Section 392, I. P. C. no separate sentence has been awarded. Kaliram Agarwalla, Srinivas Khejriwal and sentha Prasad Pandey were jointly tried with him under different charges.

(2.) PROSECUTION case may be stated in brief. Sometimes before 21-6-1963 there was a conspiracy to commit dacoity in the house of Narendra Barik amongst the four accused persons, the approver Sompal Sharma (P. W. 15), Ranjit and a punjabi. The latter two are untraced. Sentha Prasad P. W. 15, Ranjit, Ramchandra and the Punjabi gathered on the road leading from village Topigaon to village bakatpur with the object of committing dacoity in the house of the deceased narendra Barik, the Gauntia of the village Bakatpur. They waylaid themselves to kill him first as they had the apprehension that if Narendra would be present at his house, at the time of commission of dacoity, he might attack them with his gun (MO. V ). At about 6 p. m. Narendra Barik came on a cycle from the side of topigaon. The approver P. W. 15 was standing alone on the road. Sentha Prasad, ranjit and the Punjabi were near him. When Narendra reached them, Sentha prasad gave a blow with a lathi on his head. The deceased fell down from the cycle. Ramchandra directed Sentha Prasad and the Punjabi to kill him. They dragged him inside the jungle and killed him. Ranjit took the cycle and threw it in the jungle. All of them there alter proceeded to village Bakatpur. On the way santhaprasad and the Punjabi washed their hands and cleansed the blood stains. At the house of Narendra Barik, Ramchandra called Pravakar Pujhari, a Sadu (coson-in law) of the deceased, who was residing in Narendra's house, and asked him for some water. They drank the water at the threshing floor. Ramchandra asked pravakar as to when Narendra would come back. Pravakar replied that he would return very soon from Topigaon. Ramchandra again asked for some more water. When Pravakar got into the house to bring more water, the dacoits followed him. P. W. 15 stood at the entrance gate. Santhaprasad demanded the keys of the iron chest from Pravakar on show of a revolver. Pravakar told them that the keys were with Narendra, Ramchandra directed Santhaprasad to do away with Pravakar. Santhaprasad fired two shots from the revolver which hit on the chest whereafter ranjit and the Punjabi dragged him inside the house. The sound of the gun shots drought the villagers in front of the house of Narendra. Ramchandra seized the gun (M. O. V) belonging to the deceased and threatened the villagers with firing if they would further proceed. The villagers dispersed in fear. Narendra's wife hemlata (P. W. 3) was cooking inside the kitchen. She got frightened and left her house for Sundhipara, an adjoining hamlet. The dacoits ransacked the iron safe and different boxes and decamped with the booty. Some of the villagers P. Ws. 1 and 2, deceased Krushna Chandra Sahu and others went to Topigaon to call narendra. Narendra was not traced and the people of Topigaon said that Narendra had left for his village in the evening. One Krushna Chandra Sahu, since deceased, lodged the plain paper F. I. R. (Ext. 1) before the S. I. of Lanjigarh who had come to Topigaon in connection with another case. The S. I. of Police (P. W. 43) with the a. S. I. of Police (P. W. 14) and some Constables came to village Bakatpur. They found Pravakar lying injured with two gun-shot wounds on his chest and a cut injury on his ear. Pravakar died in the Ambadola dispensary the very night The defence plea was one of complete denial.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge held that death of Narendra Barik and Pravakar pujhari was homicidal and that there was a dacoity in the house of Narendra Barik. These two findings have not been questioned by Mr. Bhoi. The medical evidence fully supports the fact that the death was homicidal. There is abundant evidence about the dacoity being committed in the house of deceased Narendra. As the aforesaid findings are not challenged, it is unnecessary to discuss the relevant evidence on the point which has been fully considered by the learned Sessions judge. We endorse the findings.