NIL MADHAB PATNAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 161, Penal Code. Appellant Nil Madhah Patnaik, who has filed Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 1953, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and appellant Md. Yasin Ahmad Khan, who has filed Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 1953, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. As . both the appeals are directed against the same judgment, this judgment will govern them both.

(2.) Appellant Nil Madhab Patnaik was attached to Kandra Police outpost in Singhbhurn distinct as an assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Yasin Ahmad Khan was attached to the same police outpost as a constable. Village Bikaneepur lies within the jurisdiction of that outpost.

(3.) The prosecution case is that the wife of Phagu Manjhi (P. W. 15), a resident of village Bikaneepur, was indisposed from 30-9-1952. It was sus-' pected that she was a victim of witchcraft. The villagers, thereupon, went to village Dhatnidih in order to consult Gura Manjhi, who acted as a 'sakha (a man who drives out evil spirits). Gura Manjhi said that a ghost living in the bari' of an old woman who was the elder wife of a man and who was living close to the house of Phagu Manjhi was responsible for the illness. The villagers identified Champa Manjhin (P. W. 28) as the woman described by Guru Manjhi. Three fowls were sacrificed in order to propitiate the evil spirit. Appellant Nil Madhab Patnaik learnt about this affair two days later on 10-10-1952. He sent for Thikadar Shimanta Mahato (P. W. 16) and made enquiries from him. It may be mentioned that a 'thikadar' performs the functions of a chaukidar in the locality where the occurrence in question took place. The assistant Sub-Inspector then went to village Bikaneepur on the same date, i.e., the 10th October, arriving there at about 5 p.m. He had already sent Constable Yasin Ahmad Khan to the village and he had arrived there at about 4.30 p.m. Under the directions of appellant Patnaik, Shimanta Mahato (P. W. 16) brought together about twenty eight residents of village Bikaneepur and other neighbouring villages on the village road. Appellant Patnaik then threatened them by saying that he would chalan them. In due, course, he put forward the suggestion that he might let them off if he was paid Rs. 500. There was a good, deal of higgling and, ultimately, it was agreed that the villagers should pay the appellant at the rate of Es. 2/8 per head: Rukmini Kumar Chatterji (P. W. 2), who is also known as Thakiir, lives in village Bikaneepur as he is an employee in the Kandra Glass Factory close by. He began realising money from the assembled villagers and, with the exception of four persons, all paid him at the rate of Rs. 2/8. One of the remaining four paid him Rs. 2/4/-, The total collection came to Rs. 62/4/-, out of which P. W. 2 handed over Rs. 50 to appellant Patnaik and Rs. 12/4 to appellant Yasin Ahmad Khan. Thereafter, appellant Patnaik allowed all except Bikram (P. W. 13) and Phagu (P. W. 15) to go. He demanded a further sum of Rs. 100 each from these two witnesses for their release. After some negotiation, it was settled that they would pay him Rs. 30 each and they would also give him a goat each next day. At about midnight, both the appellants went back to their outpost.