BENGULI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants stand convicted under S.302 read with S.149 of the Penal Code ('the Code', for short) and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life and in addition, each of them has been convicted under S.148 of the Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently. All the appellants stood charged under Ss.148, 302 read with Ss.149 and 302 read with S.34 of the Code. Besides, two of them, namely, Benguli alias Subarna Khuntia and Keshaba Behera, stood charged under S.324 of the Code and the other appellants stood charged under S.324 read with S.149 of the Code.

(2.) The appellants, it was alleged, belonging to a faction hostile to Saroj Baliar Singh (to be described hereinafter as 'the deceased') waylaid him, being armed with deadly weapons after nightfall on Aug. 20, 1980 at Khapuria crossing in the city of Cuttack, with the unlawful common object of committing his murder and attacked and dealt blows which ultimately resulted in his death in the hospital where the deceased had been sent by the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) after taking up the investigation on the basis of the first information report (Ext.8) lodged by Ulash Chandra Behera (P.W.7) who, it was said, besides Mohammad Yusuf (P.W.4), Omid Kumar Ghose (P.W.8) and others had witnessed the occurrence in the course of which P.W.4 had sustained simple injuries at the hands of one of the assailants who could not be identified. Specific acts of assault had been attributed to the appellants Keshab, Benguli and Prasant and it was alleged that the other appellants had been shouting to kill the deceased. In the course of investigation, the doctor (P.W.1) had conducted the autopsy and had examined the injured witness (P.W.4). On the completion of investigation, P.W.5 had submitted a charge-sheet which resulted in the prosecution of the appellants whose plea was one of false implication in the case.

(3.) To establish its case, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses of whom P.Ws.4, 7 and 8 had figured as the witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.4 did not support the case of the prosecution and was put leading questions by it under S.154 of the Evidence Act. P.Ws.5, 6 and 10 had investigated into the case it different stages. The appellants had examined one witness in their defence.