SOMANATH @JOGI GOUDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal from jail the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 19.04.2003 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No.11 of 2002 (S.C. No.133 of 2002 GDC) convicting them under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 201/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. No separate sentence has been imposed for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that deceased Dhoba Paik had migrated to village Katapalli with his family. Accused -appellant No.1 Somanath suspected the deceased to have killed Jagili Gouda (husband of Somanaths sister) by practising sorcery (witch craft) and abused him in filthy language. On 11.04.2001 from 7.00 A.M. to 7.00 P.M., a meeting was held near Manikeswari temple and the deceased was called to the meeting along with his sons. In the said meeting, the deceased and his sons denied the allegation and asked for confirmation. Accused -appellant No.2 Tabatia Dalai told that the deceased was a sorcerer and he was responsible for Jagili Goudas death. As per direction of appellant No.2, accused -appellant No.3 Kora Dalai tied the deceased with a long and thick rope keeping his both hands at the back. With less upwards and head downwards the deceased was kept in a suspended position from a beam and was made to come up and down by pulling the other end of the rope. Accused -appellant No.7 Anrudha Naik (since dead), watcher of the village, made a fire. Accused appellant No.4 Krushna Dalai brought an iron crow bar, accused -appellant No.1 Somanath an iron plough share and accused -appellant No.5 Kailash Dalai (since dead) an 'L shape iron Dahana which were made hot in the fire. Accused -appellant No.6 Ujala Paik and others applied hot iron treatment on the deceased being callous to the supplications, beseechings, prostrains and promises of the deceased and his sons to leave the village. Such treatment continued till the body was motionless. At about 7.00 PM the body was untied and deceased was found dead. P.W.1 Bhagabata Paik, the informant, was forced by the accused persons to carry the dead body to the cremation ground and the body was cremated. The accused persons, who were village committee members and influential persons, watched the movement of the family of the deceased and threatened that if they reported the matter to the police similar treatment would be given to them. P.Ws.1 and 3, the sons of the deceased, came out of the village to attend the funeral rites of P.Ws.3s wifes brother in another village. From there they came to Pattapur police station and reported the mater on the basis of which the case was registered on 08.05.2001. The investigation was taken up by the police and after its closure charge -sheet was filed against the appellants.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Of them, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are sons and daughter of the deceased; P.W.2 is a relation of the deceased; P.W.5 is a co -villager who turned hostile and P.Ws.6 and 7 are Investigating Officers. Defence examined none.