HARIHAR PANDA AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE accused persons faced Sessions Trial No. 3/56 of 1995 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak. Amongst them, the alleged conspirator and one of the main accused Smt. Pratima Mishra, the hired muscle men accused Sk. Mobarak and Sk. Hakim were acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge by granting them benefit of doubt because of insufficient evidence to sustain the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against them. At the same time, on the basis of the evidence made available by the prosecution, he recorded the findings that the charge under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as against the Appellant No. 1, Harihar Panda and Appellant No. 2, Baidhar @ Krushna Chandra Tripathy.

(2.) NRUSINGH Charan Mishra and two deceased persons Rabindra Kumar Mishra and, Bahaduria @ Sadasiba Mishra are the sons of Ratnakar Mishra, a Brahmin Priest, who used to live at Kolkata along with his eldest son Nrusingh and earning by performing daily Puja in various shops and commercial establishments. Accused Pratima Mishra is the wife of Nrusingh Charan Mishra, but she stays in the matrimonial house in the district of Bhadrak. Accused Harihar is the brother in law (sister's husband) of accused Baidhar @ Krushna, Chandra Tripathy. Because of a quarrel with his elder brother, accused Harihar leaving his native village was staying in the house of accused Baidhar and he was in visiting term to the house of Ratnakar. It is alleged that he developed intimacy with Pratima and that illicit relationship could be seen by deceased Sadasiba. The latter scolded them and also threatened to report the matter to his father and elder brother. It is further alleged that to remove the obstruction for continuation of illicit relationship, the aforesaid, two accused persons hatched a conspiracy and also sought for assistance of hired criminals, i.e. accused Sk. Mubarak and Sk. Hakim, who belong to another village.

(3.) THERE was no eyewitness to the occurrence, but P.Ws. 6 and 7, two co -villagers stated before the I.O. that in the occurrence night, when they were returning from a neighbouring village from the house of the P.W.5, where they had gone to call the midwife for the delivery of child of P.W. 7, that in the occurrence bari they noticed focusing of torch light and heard some noise and therefore, they wanted to ascertain the reasons and focused their torch light into the bari and then they could spot both the Appellants and one of them being armed with a blood stained knife and that three other persons were there inside the campus, but they could not identify them. P.W. 5 is the other person, who is an adjoining neighbour of accused Pratima and deceased and he made statement that in the occurrence night at the relevant time, he also heard sound of Marigali Marigali etc. He came out, but finding no other sound coming from anywhere, he went and slept. In course of investigations, accused persons were arrested, their statements were recorded including the statement of Appellant No. 1, leading to discovery of M.O. I and seizure of blood stained wearing apparels from him.