The court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 324/34 IPC to Section 323/34 IPC, emphasizing absence of deadly weapon use and mitigating circumstances.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants under Sections 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order 24.08.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 82 of 1994, arising out of G.R. Case No. 348 of 1994, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 324 /34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.

2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, a report was received from the Inspector-in-Charge, Pottangi Police Station on 19.04.2025, stating that appellant No.1-Tadingi Domuri, has expired about thirty years ago and appellant No.2-Tadingi Sashi, has expired about ten months back. Hence, the appeal, so far as it relates to appellant nos.1 and 2, stands abated. The present appeal, therefore, survives only with respect to appellant No.3, namely, Tadingi Ranju.

3. The present appeal is pending since 07.09.1995. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 31.07.2025, none has appeared on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, learned counsel, who is present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Samantaray.

4. Heard Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, learned counsel along with Ms. Upasika Samantaray, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Hiridika Saba had married to Raja, the daughter of accused Tadingi Domuri (appellant No.1). Subsequently, Raja went to her father’s house and there accepted the son of one Mandangi Relly of Narangipadar as her second husband. The informant and some villagers, including the deceased Hiridika Lacheya, therefore, demanded kanya sulka from the family. On 04.03.1994, the informant and others went to the village of the accused persons and, being told that kanya sulka would be paid by Mandangi Relly of Narangipadar, proceeded to that village along with the accused persons. At Narangipadar, Mandangi Relly gave four fowls and rice to them for cooking. When the deceased was carrying another fowl towards the cooking spot, it is alleged that he was waylaid and assaulted by the accused persons with fist blows, kicks and stones. On hearing his cries, P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the spot and claimed to have witnessed the assault. The deceased was shifted to hospital and treated, but ultimately succumbed to death on 18.03.1994. On the basis of such allegation, the police investigated the case and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet for the offence under section 302/34 of I.P.C. against the accused persons.

6. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined thirteen witnesses including two claimed eye-witnesses (P.Ws.1 and 2) and the doctor (P.W.10). The defence plea was one of false implication, contending that after receipt of kanya sulka, the villagers consumed liquor and a fight broke out, as a result, the villagers assaulted each other. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence.

7. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 302 /34 of I.P.C., as the medical evidence indicated that death was the result of encephalitis and brain infection, not the direct consequence of assault. The learned trial Court, however, found that the accused persons had indeed assaulted the deceased by fis