ANIRUDHA SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, in S.T. No. 55/120 of 1998, holding the accused persons -Appellants guilty of offences under Sections 302/323 read with Section 34 IPC and convicting them thereunder.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.10.1997 deceased Surendra Kumar Behera had been to his field with his labourer (P.W.2) to cut Balunga (wild paddy). At about 5.30 P.M. while they were returning from the field, the two accused persons (Appellants in both the appeals) stopped them on the way near Madhapur Sasanchhak and challenged deceased Surendra as to why he had filed a case against them. When the deceased Surendra replied that he did not know anything about the case, both the accused persons started assaulting him by fist blows and slaps. At that time, accused Anirudha @ Benga (Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 16 of 2001) snatched away the Bahungi (split bamboo) from the hand of the deceased Surendra and dealt a blow on his back and when he attempted to give Anr. Bahungi blow, P.W.2 caught hold of the accused Anirudha along with Bahungi. At that time, accused Bidyadhar @ Bidu (Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 23 of 2001) brought out a lathi which had been concealed in a nearby bush and dealt a blow by means of the said lathi on the head of deceased Surendra, as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter accused Bidyadhar dealt 3 to 4 lathi blows on the head of the deceased Surendra. Accused Anirudha also assaulted deceased Surendra by lathi and both the accused persons chased. P.W.2 in order to assault him. However, P.W.2 managed to escape and subsequently after the accused persons left the spot, P.W.2 came again to the spot and gave water to deceased Surendra and carried him to nearby Mahadev Temple of the village, from where he was taken to Bhadrak Hospital. In view of the serious head injury sustained by Surendra, he was referred to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, where he succumbed to the injuries. Coming to know about the incident from P.W.2, the informant (P.W.1) presented a written report before the O.I.C., Bhadrak (R) Police Station, which was registered as an FIR and investigation was taken up. In course of investigation, incriminating articles were seized, post -mortem was conducted over the dead body of the deceased at Cuttack and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the two accused persons.

(3.) THE prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of the charges, out of whom, P.W. 1 is the informant, who is the wife of deceased Surendra, P.Ws.2 and 4 are eye witnesses to the occurrence and P.W.3 is the (brother of deceased Surendra who is a post -occurrence witness. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the doctors who had examined P.W.2 and the deceased Surendra and P.W.7 is the scribe of the FIR. P.W.8 is a witness to the seizure. P.W.10 is the doctor, who conducted the post -mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Surendra. P.Ws.9, 11 and 12 are the I.Os.