KHALI PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Khali Pradhan (in Crl. A. No. 93 of 2004) is the elder brother of Janardan @ Danardan (P.W.3). Gobardhan, hereinafter referred to as "the deceased". He is the younger son of P.W.2. Accused -Appellant Abhimanyu @Avina (in Crl. A. No. 240 of 2004) is the grand son (daughter's son) of Appellant Khali Pradhan.

(2.) On 28.6.2002 night, house of accused -Appellant Khali Pradhan was gutted with fire. On being asked by the inmates present in that house, P.W.3, the deceased and P.W.9 i.e., mother of the deceased came out of their adjoining pucca house to help to extinguishing the fire, but before that P.W.3 pulled out his bullock cart which was near the burning house. It is the fire brigade staff, who extinguished the fire. On the following day morning, i.e., 29.6.2002, accused Appellant Khali with some of his family members arrived at the burnt house and was in the process of cleaning. In course of that, he and his family members were scolding and abusing P.W.3 and his family members and attributing arson on them. P.W.3, thus, came and approached accused Khali Pradhan and raised protest for the abuse. It is alleged by the prosecution that then five accused persons (which includes both the Appellants) formed an unlawful assembly being armed with weapons and attacked P.W.3 so as to do away with his life. It is the further prosecution case that on the instigation of co -accused persons, accused Khali dealt a blow by means of a spade aiming to the head of P.W.3, but the latter warded it off and sustained injury only on his finger and forearm. Sustaining that injury when P.W.3 sat on the floor, the deceased rushed to his father for rescue and at that time accused Avina dealt a blow by means of a split bamboo causing injury on his head and as a result of that blow the deceased fell down. Since the deceased sustained bleeding injury on his head, therefore, he was taken to the hospital via Police Station and thereafter he was shifted to Medical College for specialized treatment because of seriousness of the injury, but on 2.7.2002, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.3, the I.P.C . (P.W.11) with the aid and assistance of P.W.10, A.S.I. of Police, took up investigation and ultimately submitted Charge Sheet for various offences including the offence under Ss. 302/149 I.P.C. Trial Court framed charge for the offences under Ss. 148/324/302/149 I.P.C. against the five accused persons.

(3.) Accused persons denied to the charges and claimed for trial. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 is the widow of the deceased, P.W.3 is the injured informant, P.W.4 is the elder son of P.W.3, P. Ws. 6 and 8 are two neighbors in the locality of occurrence and P.W.9 is the mother of the deceased (wife of P.W.3). They were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Out of them, P.W.6 did not support the prosecution and therefore, he was subjected to leading questions by the prosecution with the permission of the Court. P.W.13 is the doctor in the Headquarter Hospital who attended to both P.W3 and the deceased and granted them treatment and also respectively proved their injury certificates, Exts. 4/1 and 5/1 and P.W.12 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the post -mortem examination report, Ext. 10. As stated earlier, P. Ws. 10 and 11 are the IOs. P.W.7 and P.W.4 were the witnesses to the inquest. The other relevant documents were also tendered in evidence and accepted by the Court from the side of prosecution. Accused persons did not adduce any defence evidence.