RUSIA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stood his trial in the Court of Session being charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with having committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Sankar Swain (to be described hereinafter as the deceased) near the canal bridge of village Khalarda in the district of Cuttack in the morning of February 21, 1980. Five other accused persons, namely, Ramesh Chandra Baithalu, Baidyanath Nayak. Yudhisthir Routra, Subodh Swain and Batakrushna Sahu, were also tried with the appellant being charged under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the same murder with the appellant in furtherance of their common intention.

(2.) The prosecution had alleged that the Yubaka Sangha of the village of which the co-accused Yudhisthir was the President and the appellant was a member and the other villagers had a dispute as to what would be the rate of subscription for the Dola festival and while the members of the Yubaka Sangha were in favour of Rs. 10/- per family, the other villagers were in favour of Rs. 15/- per family. The Sub-Inspector of Police of the locality had come to the village on February 20, 1980 and effected an amicable settlement and it had been decided that the subscription would be paid at the rate of Rs. 15/- per family. On the day following, i.e., on February 21, 1980, the deceased had gone to the bridge said. Two persons, namely, Roghu and Dhula took up quarrels with each other there and the deceased intervened. At that time, an Ambassador car bearing registration number ORU 7773 and an auto rickshaw came and stopped at that place. The co-accused Yudhis their and Ramesh and the appellant got down from the car. The co-accused Yudhisthir, Ramesh and Subodh caught hold of the deceased and the appellant stabbed the deceaed on his belly with a spring knife and then took to his heels. The deceased narrated the occurrence to his brothers, P.Ws. 4 and 5. On the basis of the first information report lodged by Gangadhar (P.W. 4), the brother of the deceased, P.W. 13, the Officer-in-charge of the police station, visited the spot. He had recorded Ext. 4, the dying declaration of the deceased. Under his direction, the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 16) attached to the same police station who was on the scene of occurrence took large of the investigation. The Inspector of Police (P.W. 17) took over charge of the investigation on February 24, 1980. On the completion of investigation, a charge sheet was placed and the appellant and the co-accused persons were prosecuted.

(3.) The prosecution had examined -seventeen witnesses to establish its case. One witness had been examined for the defence in order to show that the deceased and Bhaskar had committed theft of paddy from the threshing floor of two persons and their confessions (Ext. H) had been recorded by the co-accused Yudhisthir who was also a witness to the search of the houses of the deceased and Bhaskar.