STATE Vs. CHARAN HO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DSREF No. 3 of 2007 referred under Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Baripada, Mayurbhanj to confirm the death sentence passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 9/41 of 2006 and JCRLA No. 48 of 2007 preferred by the condemned prisoner, Charan Ho are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution is that on 27.9.2005, son of accused Charan Ho, aged about ten months suddenly expired. In the cremation ground while the dead body of the aforesaid child was being cremated, deceased Rupa Ho and his wife Ganaro Ho declared that Anr. son of the said accused would also die shortly. So the accused suspecting that they killed his son by practicing sorcery planned to do away with their lives. He disclosed his intention to accused Mangala Ho who supported him. During evening hour, while both the deceased were returning home alone, accused Charan Ho and Mangala Ho followed them. On the way near Champada Banka of village Jadhidhar, accused Charan Ho inflicted several axe blows on Rupa Ho causing severe injuries leading to his death at the spot. At this ghastly sight, while Ganaro Ho was running away, he chased her and struck several blows with the same axe causing her instantaneous death. When P.W. 11, grandson of the deceased persons raised hullah, both the accused persons fled away. It is further alleged that accused Charan Ho concealed the blood stained axe in his house. Immediately P.W.11 informed this fact to Sagar Ho (P.W.5), elder brother of deceased Rupa Ho, but as darkness had already set in by that time, he did not prefer to go the Police Station to lodge F.I.R. On the daybreak, coming to know that the O.I.C. of Khuhta P.S. (P.W.14) was camping in village Jadidhar, P.W.5 got the report scribed through P.W.8 and made over the same to him. Treating the report as F.I.R., P.W.14 sent it to Khunta P.S. for registration and accordingly the A.S.I, of the said P.S. registered it, under Section 302/201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. P.W.14 took up investigation, in course of which he visited the spot, sent the dead bodies to the hospital for post -mortem examination, examined the witnesses, seized the wearing apparels of both the accused persons, sent them to hospital for collection of their nail clippings and blood sample and arrested them. It is the further case of the prosecution that while accused Charan Ho was in police custody, he confessed to have murdered both the deceased and to have concealed the weapon of offence (axe) in his house which was reduced into writing by the I.O. as per Ext.9. So saying, accused Charan Ho led the police personnel and the witnesses to his house and gave recovery of the axe (M.O. II) to P.W.14 who seized it and prepared seizure list in respect thereof. Then he forwarded the accused persons to Court. 3.12.2005 the Circle Inspector of Police, Udala (P.W.13) took over charge of investigation of the case from P.W.14 re -examined the witnesses and submitted Charge Sheet against the accused persons on 12.12.2005. The case having been committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Baripada, Mayurbhanj was transferred to the Court of Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), who framed charge under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 302/201 of I.P.C. against both the accused persons.

(3.) IN order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all. The defence did not prefer to examine any witness. After assessing the evidence on record, while acquitting accused Mangala Ho of all the charges and accused Charan Ho of the charge under Section 201 of I.P.C, the trial Court found the latter guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to death. The trial Court submitted the proceeding to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence, while the condemned prisoner preferred the appeal challenging the legality and propriety of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him, as stated earlier. Accordingly both the matters are heard together.