ARTA @ ARTATRAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein, challenges the judgment of convivtion and order of sentence dated 11.08.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court-Cum-Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T. (Special) Case No. 25 of 2003 holding him guilty under Sections 457, 363, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and convicting him thereunder. The appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo R.T. for a further period of six months under Section 302 of IPC. R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months under Section 363 of IPC and R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months under Section 457 of IPC with a direction that the substantive sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) The case against the appellant, as set up by the prosecution, was that the appellant had sacrificed one Sitakanta Behera, aged about 7 years before the Deity at village-Rusimadhia located in Jharan forest as an offering to get blessing. To sacrifice a boy before the 'God' as offering, in the intervening night of 29/30.09.2 0 02 the appellant stealthily entered into the dwelling house of Pramod Kumar Behera (P.W.3) and kidnapped his son-Sitakanta Behera, aged around 7 years while he was fast asleep. The appellant sacrificed that boy before the Deity as an offering in that night by beheading the boy. After offering and completing the ceremonies, the appellant threw the trunk and head of the deceased at different places around that temple in that forest and concealed the weapon of offence, i.e., Katuri in a well situated close to that temple. On the next morning when P.W 3 could not trace his minor son he searched for him here and there and subsequently lodged a missing report at 8.30 a.m. on 30.09.2002 at Balimi Police Station. Before the deceased remained untraced he was wearing a red strip short and having also a red thread around his neck with a silver pendent with inscription of "Lord Jagannath" thereon. On 03.10.2002, P.W.3 and others found the beheaded body of the missing child lying inside a bush near the temple and subsequently they also traced the head lying on the Western side of that temple in a bush. Immediately, police was informed, the body was recovered and sent (or post-mortem examination. On suspicion, the appellant was arrested and while in police custody he gave recovery of the alleged weapon of offence (M.O.VI) concealed in a well by which he beheaded the child The Investigating Officer also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased as well as a red thread with pendent (M Os.I. II and III) found near the temple and also seized few other incriminating materials like Puja articles On completion of the investigation PW.12 submitted charge-sheet against the appellant he having allegedly committed the aforesaid offence. On the basis of materials placed by the Investigating Officer, the Trial Court in framed charge under Sections 457, 363 and 302 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant having pleaded not guilty to the charge, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents and 11 Material Objects. However, while incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC. he admitted to have kidnapped and killed the deceased child. The learned Trial Court on consideration of entire evidence came to a conclusion that the appellant made a human sacrifice, thereby committed murder of the deceased. Sitakanta Behera having kidnapped the child from the lawful custody of his parents. However in absence of sufficient materials, the Trial Court held the appellant not guilty of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S T. (PoA) Act. Accordingly, sentences were imposed as stated earlier. Hence this Jail Criminal Appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there being no direct evidence that the appellant had committed the offences alleged against him and the circumstances relied on by the learned Trial Court being established conclusively showing the guilt of the appellant, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed are liable to be set-aside.