PRAVATUALIAS PRATIVU DALAI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NINE accused persons faced trial in the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur for the charge under Sections 302/201/34 IPC vide Sessions Case Nos. 30/26 of 1999 and 54/39 of 1999. The aforesaid two sessions cases were registered because of commitment of the cases relating to respective accused persons in two phases. Out of the said nine accused persons, five were found guilty of the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC by sharing the common intention and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life and imprisonment for three years respectively, which were to run concurrently. The convicted accused persons have preferred the above noted two criminal appeals.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, in the night of 21.02.1998, deceased Ramachandra Rout was detained in the house of accused Goura Majhi. He was subjected to torture after being tied on a pole inside the house and was forced to eat faeces. He was also subjected to physical violence. On the following morning, his face was blackened and in that condition he was made to move through the village being guarded by the accused persons and was left at his house with a caution to his sister Chandrabati (P.W.1) and brother Satyabadi (P.W.2) to see to it that the deceased adopts a decent life style and not to venture into their (accused persons') house any further. It is alleged by the prosecution that the aforesaid act was undertaken by the accused persons with a view to humiliate and harass the deceased. the reason for such humiliation is nowhere on record, even not in the case diary. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 24.02.1998, two of the accused persons came and cautioned P.Ws.1 and 2 on the conduct/movements of the deceased notwithstanding the fact that the deceased remained confined to hrs house for those two days. On 24.02.1998, after taking his night meal (supper) at about 9 P.M., the deceased went for strolling and did not return to the house. On 25.02.1998 and onwards, P.Ws.1 and 2 together with some villagers searched for the whereabouts of the deceased but could not trace him. On 26.02.1998, P.W.1 lodged a missing report with the police and on 27.02.1998 she was informed by co -villager Jhasketan Dalai and another (both not examined) that dead body of the deceased was lying in Surubali Jore (rivulet). On getting that information, P.Ws.1 and 2 together with some villagers went to that Jore (rivulet) and found the dead body of the deceased lying there. They also noticed that flesh from his legs, intestine, etc., had been eaten away by animals. P.W.1 again went and reported the matter to the police. At the stage of inquest, it was noticed by the Investigating Officer (P.W.11) so also by the witnesses to the inquest that deceased had suffered death due to pressing on neck and some other injuries on the body. Accordingly, the inquest report (Ext.4) was prepared and the dead body was sent for post -mortem examination. Dr. P.K. Mohapatra (P.W.4), who conducted post -mortem, opined that the deceased suffered death due to pressing on the neck causing suffocation and that due to that pressing the hyoid bone had been broken and the tongue bitten. Thus, P.W.4 submitted the post -mortem report (Ext.1) with the opinion of homicidal death of the deceased. In course of investigation, P.W.11 as well as the other Investigating officer (P.W.12) found certain articles at the rivulet where the dead body was lying, and that includes a cot and some clothing marked M.Os. I to III, besides M.Os. VI to IX. Such articles were seized under seizure lists (Exts.2, 5 and 6). The Investigating Officer also found a pair of Hawai Slipper of the deceased lying in the field of the accused Pravatu Dalai and seized under seizure list, Ext.9. In course of the investigation, besides attending to other routine investigation, the Investigating Officers examined the witnesses and ultimately submitted charge -sheet.

(3.) WHILE assailing the aforesaid order of conviction, learned Counsel for the Appellants does not dispute to the finding of the trial Court on homicidal death of the deceased. On perusal of evidence also we find that there is nothing to dispute on the finding that the deceased suffered homicidal death.