DEBARAJ BASANTIA AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard further argument. In course of submission, Mr. A.K. Mishra, Learned Standing Counsel states that as per the instruction received by him (copy of which is filed in a memo) no appeal has been preferred by the State as against the order of acquittal granted in favour of accused Babu Nahak for the offence under Sec. 302/34, I.P.C.

(2.) In Sessions Case No. 4 of 1997 (Sessions Case No. 392 of 96 -GDC) of the Court of Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur arising out of G.R. Case No. 89 of 1996 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Purushottampur, three accused persons namely Debaraj Basantia, Babu Nahak and Hemanta Basantia faced the trial for the offence punishable under Ss. 302/323/354/34, I.P.C. Impugned judgment was pronounced on 19.02.1999.

(3.) To put in short, prosecution case is that Raghu @ Raghunath Basantia, the deceased (hereinafter referred to as such) was tenant with respect to some of the landed properties belonging to the deity Lord Sri Jagannath and under the control of Endowment Department. Earlier the Managing Trustee Sunia Basantia was substituted by the new Trustee Sadananda Panda. On 12.07.1996 the Endowment Inspector and the O.I.C., Purushottampur police station had come to settle the matter regulating the payment of 'Bhag' by the tenants. Obeying the direction of the Endowment Inspector the deceased deposited Rs. 1900 (nineteen hundred) with the new Trustee notwithstanding direction of accused Debaraj not to do so and to deposit the 'Bhag' amount with him. After departure of the Endowment Inspector and the police officer, in the evening at about 8.00 p.m. accused Hemanta and Babu came in front of the house of the deceased and started abusing him for depositing the money with the new trustee. The deceased was living in that house together with his wife Hema (P.W.9), married daughter Sushila (P.W.2) and son -in -law Deba Nahak (P.W.1). The deceased and P.W. 1 protested to that abuse and as a reaction the accused persons went back and again returned with accused Debaraj, this time being armed with various weapons. According to the prosecution, accused Debaraj was holding a sword, accused Hemanta was holding a knife and accused Babu was holding a lathi. On reaching in front of the house of the deceased, they again called the deceased, and when the latter came out, accused Debaraj dealt a blow by the sword hitting on the head of the deceased. On sustaining that blow when the deceased fell down, accused Hemanta mounting on his chest dealt knife blows, i.e., stab blows. In the process also accused Debaraj dealt a few more blows and accused Babu dealt lathi blows to the legs of the deceased. In the process of that assault when P. Ws.2 and 9 not only shouted for help but also came to the rescue of the deceased, and accused Babu and Hemanta dragged them and put inside the cattle -shed together with P.W. 1 and they chained the door from outside. Thereafter, as alleged by the prosecution, accused persons went and obtained an Auto Rickshaw of co -accused Bhima (who did not face the trial) and put the dead body of the deceased in that Auto Rickshaw and when they were near the house of accused Debaraj, they found the villagers intervening and therefore they abandoned that Auto Rickshaw with the dead body. Some unknown person intimated the police over telephone in the morning of 13.07.1996, and after making Station Diary Entry the Officer -in -Charge of Purushottampur Police Station proceeded to the spot. There he saw the dead body and also received the F.I.R. from P.W. 1 and thereafter undertook investigation in usual and routine manner. That is the sum total of the prosecution case.