The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence, contradictions in witness testimony, and the applicability of specific sections of the Indian Penal Code, considering the presence of political rivalry and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims.

JUDGMENT

S.K.Mishra, J. - In this appeal, 13 appellants assail the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in S.T.No.16 of 1997 holding them guilty of offences under sections 148, 302, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'Penal Code') and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under sections 148, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence has been passed only under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Investigating Officer however had submitted charge sheet for the offence under sections 148, 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and charges were framed under the aforesaid penal provisions of the Penal Code.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details the prosecution case is that the occurrence took place on 03.05.1996 at about 7 A.M., on the village road of village Kamira in front of the house of one Shyamsundar Dalal. On the preceding day i.e. 02.05.1996 at about 11 A.M. a quarrel ensued between the accused-appellant, Suresh Barik on one hand and deceased Hrudananda Pradhan on the other hand because of the fact that the accused Suresh Barik allegedly assaulted two labourers who worked in the sugarcane field of the deceased.

On the date of occurrence, the deceased being in the company of one Seshadev Pradhan had been to the Medicine shop of that village to purchase medicine. Having purchased the medicine while they were returning, in front of the house of Shyamsundar Dalal the accused persons in a group being armed with weapons came up and surrounded him in order to take revenge relating to the incident occurred on the previous day. All the accused persons, as per the prosecution case assaulted the deceased mercilessly as a result of which he fell down on the ground having sustained bleeding injuries on his body. He succumbed to the injuries. The father of the deceased namely, Tirtha Pradhan went to rescue his son, but he was also assaulted brutally, as a result of which he sustained injuries and his life was at stake. On this incident, Laskar Pradhan (P.W.5) lodged a report before the I.I.C., Boud Police Station. The Investigating Officer took up investigation of the case and after taking necessary steps finding a prima facie case submitted charge sheet against the appellants as stated above.

3. The accused took a plea of complete denial to the allegations. They further took the plea that the case against them has been foisted on false allegations on account of political rivalry.

4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to establish its case. P.W.5, Laskar Pradhan is the informant in this case. He along with P.Ws.1 (Basudeb Mahanandia), P.W.2 (Rabindra Pradhan) P.W.3 (Sridhari Pradhan) P.W.4 (Tirtha Pradhan) and P.W.6 (Sajana Naik) are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.7, Dr.Silla Gangadharan is the Radioilogy Specialist. He has conducted the X-ray examination on P.W.4, Tirtha Pradhan and found that there was a fracture of shaft of left femur under his report, Ext.4. X-ray Plate is Ext.5. P.W.9, Dr.Rajkishore Sethi had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and gave his opinion on the weapon of offence i.e., M.O.I. P.W.8, Dibakar Singh, S.I. of Police, took up investigation of the case on being directed by the I.I.C., R.K.Singh. P.W.10, Rajendra Kumar Singh is the Inspector of Police who has taken over charge of the investigation after transfer of P.W.8 and submitted charge sheet. P.W.11, Dr.Arjuna Sahu, Medicine Specialist, District H.Qrs Hospital, Boud examined the injured (P.W.4-Tirth Pradhan) on police requisition. In addition to all these evidences of the witnesses the prosecution has also relied upon 14 documents as exhibits and two material objects, M.O.I being the tangia. M.O.II being a pair of chappals.

The defence on the other hand has examined D.W.1, Jitendra Prasad Bhukta. He speaks about political rivalry and the litigation between Duryodhan