ALLAD NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants challenge the judgment and order of conviction recorded on Jan. 20, 1979, by Mr. J. Tyadi, Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj -Keonjhar, in Sessions Tria} No. 36 -M of 1978, holding them guilty of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentencing each of them thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life after accepting the case of the prosecution that owing to land dispute between the deceased Balaram Sahu (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'deceased') on the one hand and the appellants on the other, the 1;wo appellants, one of 'them, namely, Allad Naik, being armed with bow and arrows and the other, namely, Harihar Naik, being armed with a Tangia (axe) and a spade, challenged the deceased An May 19, 1977 as to why he had -got the disputed land recorded in his name and inspite of the fact that the deceased returned the certified copy of the sale deed to them and offered to return the land to them. and get the record changed by striking off the signature he had put therein, the appellant Allad, at the instancy of the appellant Harihar who instigated the other appellant Allad to kill the deceased, shot an arrow which hit the chest of the deceased and pierced into his lung and the appellants then further assaulted the deceased by the sharp cutting instrument and by the handle of the spade, severed the head of the deceased and carried the severed head in a bundle to the Court at Baripatla, 'where it was seized by the Sub -Inspector attached to the Baripada Police Station, leaving the trunk of the body near about the place of occurrence, The Doctor at Baripada (PW I) before whom the severed head and the trunk of the body were produced on May 20, 1977 and May 21, 1977 respectively, conducted the autopsy after the severed head and the trunk of the dead body were identified by Basudev Sahu (PW 27), the son of the deceased, to be of his deceased father. According to the doctor, death was homicidal in nature and the injuries could be caused by sharp cutting instrument, the handle of a spade and the shooting of an arrow. In the course of investigation on the basis of the first information report lodged by Sudam Chandra Sahu (PW 22) who had accompanied the deceased to the settlement camp and had witnessed the occurrence, the statement of the appellant Allad while in custody, had led to the recovery of the arrow (M.O. V) without the arrow -head from inside a bush and the statement of the other appellant, while in custody, had led to the recovery of a spade (M.O. VI) from the house of Mukta Bewa (PW 7) to whom the appellant Harihar had handed it over after the occurrence, A Tangia carried by the appellants to Baripada was seized by the Sub -Inspector of Police (PW 21) attached to the Baripada Police Station. Witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer (PW 26) and on the completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was placed and the appellants were prosecuted being charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

(2.) TO bring home the charge to the appellants, the prosecution had examined twenty -seven witnesses of whom PWs. 13, 18 and 22 had been examined as witnesses to the occurrence. Of them, PWs 13 and 18 did not support the case of the prosecution and were put leading questions under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. PW 1 had conducted the autopsy. PW 26 was the Officer -in -charge of the Bangriposi Police Station who had investigated into the case. The arrow -head' (M.O. I) extricated by the Doctor at the time of autopsy from the lung of the deceased, the Tangia (M.O. III) seized from the possession of the appellants at Baripada, the spade (M.O. IV) seized from the house of PW 7 and the Khaki half -pant (M.O. II) seized from the person of the appellant Allad at Baripada contained blood, as recorded in Ext. 20 by the Chemical Examiner. No opinion as to whether it was human blood was, however, given by the Serologist as would appear from Ext. 20/l.

(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the charge had been established against the appellants and accordingly the order of conviction was recorded and the appellants were sentenced as stated above.