RAM KUMAR NAG Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are taken up for analogous disposal as they arise out of a common judgment passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titlagarh in S.C. No. 106/24 of 1994.

(2.) In S.C. No. 106/24 of 1999 three accused persons, namely, Laxman Panika, $ Ramesh Kumar Tandi, and Ramkumar Nag were prosecuted under Section 302/34. IPC for committing murder of one Gajendranath Chhuria, Junior Soil Conservation Officer stationed at Kantabanji in the night of 9-5-1994 at his official residence situated in the Soil Conservation campus in furtherance of the common intention. Brief fact of the case, was, that on 9-5-2004 morning the deceased along with his staff went to village Bahabal area for making payment to the labourers, who were engaged in different projects of the Soil Conservation Department. After making payments, he returned to his residence situated inside the Soil Conservation office building at Kantabanji with the remaining cash at about 7.30 to 8.00 p.m. There, after taking dinner, he called accused Laxman Panika, (appellant in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1996) who was working as his personal servant and watchman of the Soil Conservation Office, to give him massage and Laxman accordingly came to the residence of the deceased and massaged the legs of the deceased. In the following morning, the water carrier found the main gate of the Soil Conservation Office locked and Laxman Panika missing. He informed the office staff, who searched for Laxman in vain. Not finding Laxman the Staff broke the lock, entered inside the office campus and found the front door of the residence of the deceased closed from inside. They found back door leading to the courtyard open and entered through that back door to find the bed room door oi the deceased closed with a lock hanging in the latch of the door in open condition. Suspecting foul play, they informed the Assistant Engineer, Soil Conservation, Titlagarh who was available at Bolangir over phone and on his advice, they lodged a report before the police authorities. Police authorities visited the spot, entered inside the room and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood with stab injuries on his body. Immediately, a murder case was registered and investigation was conducted. During investigation, inquest was held over the deadbody, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination, incriminating articles were seized from the spot. A search was made for accused Laxman Panika and he was arrested after a few days He confessed to police in presence of independent witnesses that he committed murder of deceased and removed Rs. 16,000/- from the almirah of his bed room of the deceased and Rs. 70,000/- from the iron chest of the office. He also led the police party to the house of accused Ram Kumar Nag (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1996) and a cash of Rs. 35,000/- in an attache was seized from that house on production of the father of said Ram Kumar Nag Laxman also led the police to a hotel room at Kesinga and gave recovery of weapon of offence, knife and the same was seized. Ram Kumar Nag while in police custody also confessed that he removed Rs. 30,000/- from the attache left at his home by Laxman Panika and kept that amount with three persons of Raipur who were known to him. Being led by Ram Kumar Nag the police authority recovered Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- from two persons residing in Railway colony, Raipur. The clothes of the deceased and accused and other incriminating articles were subjected to chemical examination and blood stains were found on the clothes of the deceased The said blood matched with the blood group of the deceased. Basing on the above noted circumstances and the fact that accused Laxman and the deceased were last seen together, police booked Laxman Panika for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC along with other two accused named above, who helped him in committing the murder and concealing the stolen money and weapon of offence. The plea of the respondents was one of denial and false implication.

(3.) To establish the charge, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and produced several documents. Defence also examined four witnesses in support of their plea.