BHIMA DEHURI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Bhima Dehuri (Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1993) and appellants Mahia Maheswar Pradhan, Bana Banamali Dehuri, Brajabandhu Pradhan and Rahas Dehuri along with six others stood charged under sections 148,302/149,302/34,201/34 and 342, I.P.C. in the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. While acquitting the six associates of the appellants, the learned Trial Judge convicted appellant Bhima Dehuri (Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1993) under sections 201 and 342, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 201, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 342, I.P.C. The sentences are to run concurrently. The other four appellants referred to above in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1993 have been convicted under section 302/34, I.P.C. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. As the two appeals arise out of the same judgment, they were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) Prosecution case is that the aforesaid five appellants along with six others (who have been acquitted) belong to Maniabhandha Sahara Sahi, Dinabandhu Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was also staying with his wife and three children in the same village. The villagers suspected the deceased to have practising witchcraft for which he and his family members were ex-communicated. Due to this, the deceased was staying in village Dimiria along with his three children and his wife was staying in her fathers house at Kuanrpala. On 13.2.1992 the deceased along with his three children visited Maniabandha Sahara Sahi. On the next day, i.e., 14.2.1992 at about 2 p.m. wife of the deceased came to Maniabandha Sahara Sahi and found her husband and her children absent in their own house. On enquiry from the neighbours in the village, she could not get any information about their whereabouts the allegation of the prosecution is that the appellants along with their associates by forming an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly caused the death of the deceased in the night of 13.2.1992 and also wrongfully confined his three children. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the wife of the deceased, investigation commenced in course of which appellant Bhima Dehuri while in police custody confessed to have concealed the dead body of the deceased in Kainiathali hill and led the police to give discovery of the dead body.

(3.) The plea of the appellants was one of denial.