ABHAYA PARICHHA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, four in number, assail the judgment and order dated 21. 12. 1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Paralakhemundi in S. T. Case No. 26 of 1992 (S. T. Case No. 98 of 1992 G. D. C.)convicting the accused-appellants namely abhaya Parichha, Siba Paik and Prafulla paik for the offence under Sections 147 and 332 of I. P. C. and sentencing each them to undergo R. I. for two years and the accused-appellant Hallium Nayak for the offence under Sections 147/332/149 of I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for one year for the offence under Sections 147/149 of i. P. C. and R. I. for same period for the offence under Sections 332/149 of I. P. C.

(2.) THE case, as delineated by the prosecution, is that on 21. 10. 1990 being directed by PW10, the O. I. C. Mohana Police Station, sri Padmanav Panigrahi, A. S. I. of the said p. S. (PW1) proceeded to village Chandiput to enquire into the allegation regarding killing of a bull. While enquiring into the matter, he got information that the accused persons after killing the bull were sharing the meat among themselves in Kapuriapata jungle. So, the A. S. I, along with surjyanarayan Dolai (PW2), Prasan Kumar das, Durjyodhan Baliarsingh (PW8), balakrishna Pati (PW4), Suryanarayan behera (PW11) and some others went to that jungle and saw about 12 persons were preparing meat of the bull near a rivulet. At the sight of A. S. I. and the witnesses accompanying him, they took to their heels. Some of the witnesses chased those miscreants, while the A. S. I. seized some axes, katuris and meat in presence of the other witnesses and prepared seizure list in respect thereof in the meantime, the A. S. I. got information that some of villagers of village kapuriapata apprehended five miscreants, who were running away from the spot. So, the A. S. I. and some other witnesses went to that village and found five miscreants to have been detained by the villagers. On query, they disclosed their names to be nutap Lima, Bikram Dalai, Pratap Nayak, joseph Naik and Promod Parichha and all of them also admitted that they along with seven other persons had slain the bull. So, the A. S. I. arrested all the five persons and proceeded with the enquiry. In the meantime, 20 to 25 persons, all belonging to christian community, rushed to the spot and declared to kill the A. S. I. and other witnesses. Accused Abhaya Parichha assaulted pw1 the A. S. I. with a wooden plank on his head and hand and some other accused persons also attacked him with fist blows and lathis causing fracture and bleeding injury on the head and snatched away the note book from him. It is further alleged that the accused persons forcibly released the five persons arrested by the A. S. I. and assaulted the witnesses who were present with the a. S. I. On the same date, the A. S. I. orally reported the incident before the O. I. C. , cf mohana P. S. , (PW10), as he was not able to write because of the injury sustained on his right hand, which was reduced into writing and treated as F. I. R. As the F. I. R. revealed a cognizable case, PW10 registered Mohana p. S. Case No. 51/90 and took up investigation. In course of investigation, he examined the witnesses, seized some material objects, sent the injured persons, namely, Binod behera, S. Dalai (PW2), B. Pati (PW4), tirtha and S. Pujari to Mohana P. H. C. for their medical examination, arrested the accused persons and forwarded them to Court and after completion of investigation finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, numbering 31 submitted charge sheet against them. The case having been committed to the Court of Session was transferred to the Addl. Sessions Judge, paralakhemundi for disposal. Accordingly, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi framed charge against all the 31 accused persons for the offence under Sections 148\333/204/323/395 of I. P. C.

(3.) THE plea of the accused persons was complete denial of their involvement in the crime in question. It was their further plea that earlier there was dispute between the hindu and the Christian communities of village Chandiput for which this case has been falsely foisted against them, all of whom profess Christianity.