Conviction under IPC sections 302 and 201 upheld based on reliable eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence; the prosecution established motive linked to a land dispute.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The appellants in the present appeal seek to challenge the judgment dated 08.10.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T.Case No.58 of 1998, whereby they were convicted for the offence under Sections 302/201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:-

On 14.11.1997 on the Rahas purnima day, the informant Mohan Kumar Mohanta, his younger brother Subash Mohanta accompanied by their parents were proceeding to village Saleikena to witness ‘pala’ at about 10. P.M. While going through the agricultural fields, they met both the accused persons and their father Sukadev Naik, who asked for their identities. The informant’s father identified himself and his family members and on their query, informed that they were going to witness pala in their village and proceeded on his way. The accused persons along with their father followed them. Suddenly, accused Nityananda accosted the group from the front while accused Hari was at the rear. Suka was also behind Hari. Nityananda held a ‘Bahungi’ while Hari held a bow and arrow and an axe. Nityananda assaulted the father of the informant with the Bahungi and then both brothers together assaulted the informant’s parents by Bahungi and axe causing them to fall on the ground. Suka Naik was also present there. Seeing the assault, the informant and his younger brother ran away out of fear and went towards their village Dimiria. While Subash proceeded to Saleikena, the informant went home and informed his elder sister, then he informed Bipin Master of his village and searched for other villagers but all of them had gone to witness the Pala. The informant then went to the house of Purna Sahu and informed him about the occurrence. Thereafter, both went to the house of the Chowkidar, Pravakar Patra and narrated the incident. The Chowkidar advised them to report the matter at the police station and thereafter both came to the police station and submitted the report. It was a full moon night and the informant could clearly identify the accused persons and Suka. While he was reporting the matter at the police station, his younger brother Subash came and informed that their mother was lying dead at the spot. There was a land dispute between the accused persons and the father of the informant for five to six years prior to the incident and a case was pending in the Court. Bearing grudge, the accused persons had killed his parents.

The report of the informant was reduced to writing leading to registration of Telkoi P.S. Case No. 72 of 1997 under Sections 302/34 of IPC followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 302/201/34 of IPC.

3. The accused persons took the plea of denial.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and proved thirty three documents besides three material objects.

5. Defence did not adduced any evidence, either oral or documentary.

6. After analyzing the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge found that prosecution had established its case entirely against accused–Nityananda and accused- Hari but he did not find any incriminating evidence against accused-Suka. As such, Suka was acquitted but the other accused persons (present appellants) were held guilty of the offences under Sections 302/201 of IPC and were convicted for the same and sentenced as already stated hereinbefore.

7. Being aggrieved, the accused persons have preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahoo, learned counsel for