LADU PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") have moved the Court, for quashing the proceeding pending against them in G.R. Case No. 150 of 1996, in the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patrapur, corresponding to Jarada PS. Case No. 95 of 1996. Accusing commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') law was set into motion against them.

(2.) According to petitioners, law was set into motion with oblique motives on account of long-standing dispute between the villagers of two villages viz., Gothagaon and Khaira, relating to irrigation facilities for cultivation from a reservoir. It is their case that the villagers of Khaira used to damage the embankment of the reservoir, thereby disrupting the water flow to the lands of the petitioners and co-villagers, who belong to village Gothagaon. Villagers of Khaira are headed by one Purusottam Pradhan @ Barik Master, who is an influential person He has close proximity with the local MLA who incidentally is the Speaker of State Legislative Assembly. On account of money and muscle power, the villagers of Khaira indulge in all types of criminal activities. Petitioners and the co-villagers are politically opposing the present ruling party and its local representative. On 16.10.1996, at 4.30 p.m. a meeting was held in the house of said, Purusottam Pradhan @ Barik Master which was attended by the son of the Speaker viz., Rabi Samantaray. There the said Rabi Samantaray instigated the villagers of Khaira to assault the villagers of Gothagaon and assured them of all types of help and protection from prosecution. Accordingly, on 17.10.1996 at about 9 a.m., the villagers of Khaira headed by the said Purusottam Pradhan being armed with deadly weapons attacked the villagers of Gothagaon who were working in their paddy fields. First they caught hold of one Enka Pradhan and assaulted him and he died at the spot. They also assaulted other persons available nearby. Seeing such acts, villagers of Gothagaon tried to resist, but they failed in their efforts and fled away from the spot. Information was lodged on the very same day at Jarada P.S. and, accordingly, Jarada P.S. Case No. 89 of 1996 was registered against the villagers of Khaira. In the incident, some of the villagers of Khaira including one Nari Pradhan suffered minor/superficial injuries On their persons. They were immediately discharged by Primary Health Centre after primary medical aid. Investigation was undertaken on the basis of information lodged by Lima Pradhan, Petitioner No. 2. Police arrested the said Purusottam Pradhan @ Barik Master and others. On 26.10.1996 the Investigating Officer (in short, the 'I.O.'), was threatened with dire consequences by the Speaker for venturing to arrest Purusottam, according to whom no action was taken against the villagers of Gothagaon. On 27.10.1996, the I.O. went to MKCG Medical College and Hospital, where Nari Pradhan was undergoing treatment. Even though, the said Nari Pradhan was an accused he was not arrested, and instead an FIR was drawn at about 9 a.m., wherein it was stated that when the informant was working in his land, there was fight between the villagers of the two villages and at that time Bhubani Pradhan, Gopi Pradhan and others rushed towards him and trampled him and Gopi Pradhan dealt a blow on his neck by means of a lathi for which he fell down at the spot. Then his co-villagers arrived at the spot and the rioting continued. Pursuant to these allegations Jarada P.S. Case.No. 95 of 1996 was registered on 27.10.1996. After lodging of the said FIR except the informant and his grandson who scribed the FIR no other occurrence witness named by them could be examined, because they were absconding being accused in the counter case. However, those two persons named by the informant were arrested. How and why, the said Nari Pradhan was admitted to the MKCG Medical College and Hospital is not known. But the fact remains that he was never referred to that Hospital for treatment. Immediately after his admission at the Hospital, he was referred to the Radiological Department for X-ray and the report indicated that there was no bone injury. The Doctor looking after him, a Nurse and a co-patient had categorically stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') that the patient was not looked after properly and there was no expectation of death. No external injury was also found on the body of Nari Pradhan. The Doctor also opined that the spinal cord of the patient was compressed which can be cured by operation. However, the said Nari Pradhan died on 17.11.1996. While the matter stood thus, the I.O. and the then Superintendent of Police were pressurised to proceed against the villagers of Khaira. Since these officers refused to oblige and succumb to pressure, investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch. The Superintendent of Police was transferred and the I.O. was placed under suspension. After investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch, the case took a different turn.

(3.) Witnesses came to the picture for the first time after four months and different picture was projected Different persons were described to be the assailants. Against nineteen persons including the petitioners, charge-sheet was placed. Materials on record indicate that petitioners are not aggressors and were trying to defend themselves, and materials collected clearly show that they had no role to play in the alleged incident. Nature of injuries shows that except one person i.e. deceased Nari, others suffered laceration by contusion or incised wounds. Accusations of graver offences were made solely for the purpose of harassing petitioners. In that view of the matter, the present proceeding is sheer abuse of process of law, and should be quashed by exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code.