KALISETTI BHIMARAJU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the appellants assail their conviction under section 201 I.P.C. and sentence of R.I. for three years, whereas, appellants Kalisetti Bhimaraju, Dasiri Krishnamurty and Pemi Appa Rao assail their conviction under section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is, on 23.5.1990 during the morning hours deceased Pemi Balaram and his wife (P.W. 2) and appellant Nali Karleyya were engaged in plucking screwpine flower (Kiya Phula). Sometime thereafter when the deceased and P.W. 2 left that place, brother of appellant Nali Karleyya made an allegation before Naidu Jagannath, the headman of the village, that the deceased had committed theft of screwpine flower and tendered Rs. 20/- to the said Naidu Jagannath to convene a village meeting for decision. To counter this, on 24.5.1990 the deceased borrowed Rs.1000/-from a co-villager and while was going to village Mandan to deposit the amount with the headman around 1 p.m., it was alleged, that appellant K. Bhimaraju assaulted on the backside of deceased Balaram with a split-wood. After the deceased fell down on the ground, appellant B. Appa Rao with a piece of stone crushed the head of the deceased (Chhechidela). At that time the other appellants being armed with Kati and lathis assaulted the deceased who died at the spot. All the accused persons on the next day carried the dead body and cremated the same inspite of protest by P.W. 2 and others. P.W. 2 lodged a report at the police station. The police visited the cremation ground and recovered from the burning pyre some burnt bone pieces which were subjected to forensic laboratory test which showed the bones of a human body. The appellants denied the prosecution allegations and further pleaded that the case was falsely instituted against them because of rivalry between the two groups during the panchayat election.

(3.) Heard Mr. S.K. Mohanty and Mr. A.K. Acharya, Learned Counsel for the appellants, and Mr. J.K. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel, for the State. Though Mr. S.K. Mohanty advanced extensive argument and referred to a series of decisions of this Court and the apex Court in regard to the credibility of the witnesses particularly the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 who are relations of the deceased, the effect of suppressing the real F.I.R., non- examination of independent as well as material witnesses, inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the place where the occurrence took place, enmity between P.W.4 and the appellants over the issue of Panchayat election etc., I feel, it would be idle to drift into all those aspects in the case since in my view the matter can be otherwise disposed of in the manner hereinafter discussed. Mr. J.K. Mohanthy, learned Standing Counsel for the State, on the other band, supported the judgment of conviction.