KHETRABASI PALEI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - All the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for offences under sections 447 and 323 I.P.C. Over and above appellant Sashikant Palei, though he was charged for an offence under section 302 I.P.C., was convicted and sentenced under section 304 I.P.C. In this appeal the appellants, have challenged he judgment of conviction and, sentence.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the disputed paddy land was in possession of the informant Gopal Mahanta (P.W. 1) and his brother Mahura Mahanta. The appellants are said to have purchased the same from the latter and so at about 7 a.m, on 25-4-1981, along with ploughmen and being armed with dangerous weapons, such as, lathi and axe, they trespassed into the disputed land and began ploughing the same. P.W. 1 Gopal Mahanta observed the action of the appellants from his house and immediately came down and protested. The appellants picked up a quarrel, in course of which P.W. 1 was assaulted by appellant Khetrabasi by means of an axe (M.O. I. He was also assaulted by the other appellants by means of lathis. He received bleeding injuries, as a result of the assualt, His wife Sumati (P.W. 2) and his son Santanu (P.W. 8) arrived at the scene and they were also severely assaulted by one or tile other of the appellants. P.W -3 Kokila, the daughter of P.W. 1 was coming to the place of Occurrence when appellant Sashikanta met her on the way and assaulted her by means of an axe while holding out threat that he will murder all the family members of P.W. 1. All the injured persons were removed to Janghira Dispensary by P.W. 9 Khstrabasi where they were examined and treated P. W. 3 Kokila arrived at the dispensary and conveyed to P.W 1 that appellant Sashikanta had threatened to kill all the members of their family and stated her apprehension about her younger brother Bhrungaraj whom she had left alone at home. After she was treated of the injury, P.W. 1 sent P.W. 3 Kokila along with P.W. 10 Hare krishna to his, house to look for Bhrungaraj. When he arrived at home, they found that Bhrungaraj was lying unconscious with head injury. Both P.Ws. 3 and 10 enquired from, the neighbours as to what had happened and they were told by P.W. 13 Krishna that appellant Sashikanta had entered into the house with an axe in hand by the front door and after remaining for about I minutes be left the house by the back door. Bhrungaraj was removed first to the Janghira Dispensary and as his condition was serious he was later removed to Keonjhar Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 1 Gopal Mahanta lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 1). In course of investigation, the post-mortem examination of deceased was the conducted and it was found that his death was homicidal. After close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants.

(3.) The defence of the appellants was that they had purchased the disputed land from Mahura Mahanta the brother of P.W. 1 Gopal Mahanta came and threatened them not to plough the land. When the appellants agreed that the matter could be settled up at the village, P.W. 1 Gopal Mahanta and all the members of his family including his son-in-law (P. W. 9) Khetrabasi attacked and assaulted them by axe add lithi, as a result of which they sustained injuries and F.I.R. was lodged with regard to the incident by appellant Hrushikesh. In short, the appellants denied that the had assaulted any of the injured persons or were in any way connected with the death of the deceased.