Back
2008 Supreme(Ori) 784
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
L. Mohapatra, B.P. Ray, JJ.
PURNA CHANDRA NAG AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1996
Decided On : 12-09-2008
D.P. Dhal and Associates, for the Appellant; Govt. Advocate, for the Respondent
The judgment establishes the importance of consistent testimonies, medical evidence, and the lack of evidence supporting the right of private defense and intention to commit culpable homicide in reaching a decision.
Headnote:
Conviction - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 302, I.P.C. - Section 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of multiple appellants for offenses under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution's case revolved around a land dispute leading to a fatal assault on a member of the Scheduled Caste community.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty based on consistent testimonies of witnesses and medical evidence, concluding that the injuries inflicted by the appellants were the cause of death of the deceased. The court rejected the plea of right of private defense and alibi, and determined that the appellants had no intention to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder.
Issues: The key issues included the ownership and possession of the disputed land, the exercise of right of private defense by the accused persons, and the intention of the accused persons in causing the death of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the accused persons' right of private defense, the ownership and possession of the disputed land, and the absence of intention to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellants was maintained, but the sentences were reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
What is...
JUDGMENT :
B.P. Ray, J. - Both the appeals having arisen from out of the Judgment and order dated 29.06.1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Boudh Kandhamals : Phulabani in S.T. Case No. 20 of 1995 are heard analogously and disposed of by this common Judgment.
2. Appellant No. 1 - Purna Chandra Nag and Appellant No. 2-Nitei @ Nityananda Nag have been convicted for offence u/s 302, I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act) and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default of payment of fine, each of them is to undergo R.I. for three months more. Appellant No. 3-Gour Chandra Nag and Appellant No. 4 Subhra @ Subhramanyam Nag have been convicted for the offence u/s 326, I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, each of the them is to undergo further R.I. for three months.
Appellant-Haribola Nag (in Jail Criminal Appeal) has also been convicted for offence u/s 326, I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months more.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 3.7.1994 around 9 A.M., when some members of Scheduled Caste community, namely, Jayadev Luha, Jagdish Luha, Krutibas Luna, Bahadul Luha and Dhanu Khura, who are the residents of village Risibandha ploughing their land, which was purchased by them from their co-villager Dhobei Nag, the accused persons criminally trespassed into the purchased land, and in furtherance of their common object committed riot by using deadly weapons like medha, axe, tabilia, gun etc. Their sole purpose was to commit murder of Jayadeva Luha and they assaulted Jayadeva Luha by means of medha (thenga), axe and tabilia. Jayadeva Luha was shifted from the place of occurrence to the medical, where he was found dead. One Karmu Luha lodged the F.I.R. of the incident before the O.I.C., Manamunda P.S. and thereafter the investigation was set into motion.
4. During investigation, police held inquest and arranged post mortem examination of the dead body of Jayadeva Luha. Police seized the wearing apparels of the deceased after post mortem examination and seized the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence as well as from the panchayat road side. Police also seized the axes besides the sale deed of the purchased land and obtained the medical reports in respect of the injured persons. Police also sent the material objects for serological examination. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet where after the case was committed to the Court of Session.
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and produced several documents. P.W. 1 is the informant, P.Ws.2, 4 & 7 are the injured witnesses. P.W. 3 is the police constable who identified the dead body of the deceased to the post mortem doctor. P.Ws.5 & 6 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.8 is the seller of disputed land and is also an eye witness, P.W.9 is the post mortem doctor. P.W. 10 is a doctor, who held medical examination on the injured persons and P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer.
6. In order to strengthen their case, the defence has examined 5 witnesses and also proved some documents.
7. The death of the deceased Jayadev is not in dispute. P.W. 9 has conducted the autopsy and has submitted the post mortem report under Ext.10. He has opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were all ante mortem in nature and homicidal as well. Therefore, it can be concluded that the deceased Jayadev died a homicidal death.
The next point to determine is whether the Appellants are the authors of the said injuries and caused the death of the deceased. Learned Sessions Judge in order to record the order of conviction has relied up
