BHASKAR CHANDRA PATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants ten in Humber (hereinafter to be referred to as the accused) have been convicted under sections 304 Part II read with Sections 149, 148 and 323 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each for the first said offence but no separate sentence has been awarded for the remaining offences.

(2.) Admittedly, Ghanshyam Pati, Kanhai Pati (hereinafter to be called the deceased) and Abhiram Pati were three brothers. Ghanshyam had no son of his own, where the deceased had three sons namely, Krushna (informant), Sanatan and Pitam bar and Abhiram had four sons namely, Ananda (accused No. 9), Purusottam (accused No. 10), Upendra (accused No. 3) and Bhaskar (accused No. 1). Ghanshyam being sonless, had adopted Ananda (accused No. 9). Hadibandhu Dhani (accused No. 2) and Nisakar Dhani (accused No. 4) are the wifes brother of Ghanshyam are krushna Dhani (accused No. 8) is the son of Hadibandhu (accused No. 2). Panchanan Panda (accused No. 5), Sadananda Hota (accused No. 6) and Mahendra Pati (accused No. 7) do not belong to either the Pati family or Dhani family, but they along with the deceased and other accused persons are covillagers, being residents of village Nichhibindha under Tihidi Police Station to type district of Balasore. Of the three brothers while Kanhai (deceased) and Abhiram with their family members were staying in different portions of the same house, their brother Ghanshyam who was sonless was staying with his family outside..

(3.) Shortly stated, the prosecution case is that on 17.6.1986 Ghanshyam conveyed some of his landed properties in favour of Kanhai (deceased) and his close relatives and in the sale deeds executed in favour of his daughter-in-law and his son-in-law and his brother, Kanhai (deceased) was the identifying witness. Three days thereafter on 19.6.1986 morning all the aforesaid sons of Abhiram including Ananda challenged Kanhai (deceased) as to why he figured as identifying wiUless in the sale-deeds executed in favour of his daughter-in-law and his son-in-law and his brother and this gave rise to a fracas between the members of both the families. In course of the quarrel, Ghanshyam appeared in the house and desisted both the families from quarrelling saying that he was still the owner of vast extent of landed properties which he would sell not only in favour of his adopted son Ananda but also in favour of his other utarine brothers. So saying, he instructed the sons of Abhiram and Kanhai (deceased) to-call some Bhadralogs before whom the promise made by him would be conveyed. Accordingly, Krushna (informant) called some Bhadralogs of the village who sat down on the outer verandah of his house for making amicable settlement of the dispute. Not being satisfied with such assurance given by Ghanshyam, accused Ananda, Purushottam, Upendra and Bhaskar went out of their house and reappeared at about 8 a.m. in front of their house along with other seven accused persons who were all variously armed. Accused Hadibandhu and Nisakar were each holding a Salam, accused Ananda was holding a Tenta, accused Harekrushna was holding two bombs whereas others were each armed with a lathi. Soon after their aerial, they shouted to drag the deceased Kanhai outside and on hearing such shout when Abhiram opened the outer door, accused Ananda, Purushottam, Upendra and Bhaskar ragged the deceased to the outer verandah and at that point of time a bomb thrown by accused Harekrushna being struck against the door frame exploded. Thereafter, accused Hadibandhu and Nisakar dealt a blow each with the Salams held by them on the right thigh of the deceased whereas accused Ananda dealt agent blow to the left leg above the knee joint. At the sight of such assault when Krushna (informant), Ghanshyam and Manoranjan raised protests, they were also assaulted. After receiving the bleeding injuries when the deceased Kanhai fell down on the ground, he was taken inside the house where he was given some first aid and thereafter he was removed to Ghanteswar Dispensary where he was declared dead by the medical officer. Thereafter, Krushna immediately rushed to Pirhat Police Out Post where he verbally reported the incident at about 1 p.m. which was reduced into writing by the police. In course of investigation, the police seized from the spot one hand bomb, some jute thread and the iron portion of Salam. Some cemented flooring and a napkin stained with blood were also seized. The injured persons were sent for medical examination. Inquest over the dead body was held and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Most of the seized articles were sent for chemical examination and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted not only against the 10 accused persons introduced above but also against seven others. After commitment of the case all the 10 accused persons named above along with their associates faced trial for the offences punishable under sections 148, 352, 323/149 and 302/ 149 I.P.C. and also under section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act.