Decided on August 09,1950

HADU Appellant
STATE Respondents


Jagannadhadas, J. - (1.) The appellant before us has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life under first count and to rigorous imprisonment for five years under the second count the sentences to run concurrently. He has been held guilty of having murdered one Bhima Panda on the night of 19-5-1949 and caused the disappearance of the dead body from the scene of the offence with the intention of screening himself. At the trial, there was another accused, A-2, the brother of the appellant but he has been given the benefit of doubt by the learned Sessions Judge and acquitted.
(2.) The appellant Hadu Samanta is a resident of Humma Gada. The deceased Bhima Panda is a resident of the village Nadapandapalli, some distance away. The evidence on the side of the prosecution shows that the appellant and the deceased were on friendly terms and that the deceased was placing implicit confidence in the appellant. The appellant had taken a lob of gold and money from the deceased under the inducement that he would teach him some vidya whereby he could get gold and that he would perform a homa which would, bring out to him golden pots from the earth. It is in evidence of the wife of the deceased, P. W. 18, that the deceased sold away his lands and the gold and silver ornaments on the person of his wife and his daughter and had given in all about Rs. 3000 to the appellant in the course of about two years prior to the date of the alleged occurrence, and that her husband used to go to the house of the appellant frequently to demand gold from Hadu and was being put off. It is also her evidence that her daughter grew into marriageable age and that the deceased ac3ordingly pressed the appellant for return of his money in order to be able to perform the marriage of his daughter. This evidence of the wife of the deceased, P. W. 13, is substantially corroborated by her brother, P. W. 1. '
(3.) According to the prosecution case, the deceased went to the house of the appellant for the last time for demanding money 8 days prior to his death. On the day of the occurrence, he was returning to his village, but on the way by the time be arrived at the village called Borada, he felt suffering from some ailment and started belching and vomiting in front of the * house of one Natia Panda, P. W. 5. P. W. 5 sent word to one Govinda Panda, nephew of the deceased who was running a tea-shop at a place called Munshipenta on the other side of the river which adjoined the village Borada. On the arrival of Govinda Panda, the deceased wanted to go back to the house of the appellant, presumably because he thought that his ailment was the result of some medicine which, according to him, he had taken at the house of the appellant, and wanted to take his advice for getting rid of the trouble. P. W. 6 was persuaded to take the deceased back to the village of the appellant for hire. According to his evidence, he took the deceased on a cart from Borada to Gada Humma and arrived there at about sun set time, He stopped in front of a house whose owner he could not identify. The owner was not there at the time and the deceased got out of the cart and sat in front of the house waiting-for the arrival of the owner, coughing, belching and spitting all the time. The owner arrived at about 2 ghadis after sun set and Bhima Panda said to the owner: "What medicine you gave me. I become restless. I could not go to my village, so I returned. I shall remain with you." The owner told him: "All right." Thus saying he took him inside his house. The owner while taking the deceased inside his house asked P. W. 5 to wait to take him back. But the deceased refused to go back and accordingly P. W. 5 returned back to his village with the cart.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.