STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BISU GOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Nos. 1, 5, 9 and 10 faced trial under Section 302, of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of one Sonia Naik and, the other respondents along with them faced the trial under Section 148, 302 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed riot besides causing the death of Sonia Naik and causing hurts to P.Ws.1,5,6,7,9 and 10 and another Hinjiriya Jaya. Another, accused Jaya Gouda who was also charge-sheeted to face the trial had expired hefore its commencement.

(2.) The prosecution came with a case that Jaya Gouda, Bisu Gouda (respondent No.1), and the father of P.W.1. and others were on litigating terms since 1969 in respect of a piece of land measuring 12 acres in village Charangul which stood recorded in Ext.1 in favour of the father of P.W. 1 A suit filed by Jaya Gouda and others claiming title and interest in the land as also for recovery of possession of the s.ame failed at the appellate stage. The land had also been mutated in favour of P.W. 1 and that was attached in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in M.C. No. 20 of 1979, but that the accused persons, armed with lathis and spades, came upon the land as the aggressors in the morning of 2-7-1980 and assaulted the deceased and P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 and dragged away the deceased Sonia Naik and P.W. 9-Dhana Hinjiriya to the dry field of accused N anda Gouda (respondent No.6) where Sonia was mercilessly beaten leading to his death and P.W. 9 was rendered senseless by beating. After the occurrence, the accused persons left the place. A First Information Report was lodged at the Koraput Police Station by P.W.1. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the trial commenced.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge analysing the evidence came to the conclusion that the members of the party of the P.W.1 were the aggressors and finding that the injuries suffered by the accused persons were more severe than those suffered by the other side but such injuries were not explained, and also finding that Sonia Naik had not been dragged to the field of Nanda Gouda but during the quarrel with the accused persons he himself had advanced there as an aggressor, held the respondents to have lawfully exercised right of private defence to safeguard their person and property and acquitted them. The learned Sessions Judgb also came to the conclusion that the assault on P.W. 9 as alleged, did not occur there being variance in the evidence of the witnesses in that regard.