The absence of premeditated intent and evidence of rioting with deadly weapons negates the applicability of Sections 148 and 149, allowing modification of convictions under Section 323 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

Four convicts have jointly preferred the present appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 22.01.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. No. 12 of 1992. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court found the appellants guilty of offences punishable under Sections 148 , 323 read with Section 149 and 304 Part-II read with of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, each of the appellants was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 323 read with IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 304 Part-II read with . However, no separate sentence was imposed U/s.148 of .

2. While the appeal was pending, this Court was apprised that appellant no.1- Multu @ Tarachand Mohanta has expired. Therefore, vide order dated 31.07.2025, the appeal against the said deceased appellant stood abated, in the absence of any motion on behalf of the legal heirs or next friend of the deceased appellant U/s.394 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present appeal is confined to appellant Nos.2 to 4.

3. Heard Mr. Niranjan Lenka, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case, in substance, is that on 07.06.1991 the accused persons, along with one Kalicharan Mohanta, formed an unlawful assembly and proceeded to the disputed land situated at village Jagannathpur with the common object of forcibly taking possession of the said land and of causing the death of Chaitan Mohanta and his family members in the event of any resistance.

It is alleged that at the relevant time Chaitan Mohanta, his sons, nephew and uncle were ploughing and sowing at the disputed land, when the accused persons arrived there and launched an attack. Accused Hulku @ Madhucharan Mohanta allegedly dealt a lathi blow on the head of Krutibas Mohanta, who was sitting on the land, as a result of which Krutibas fell down unconscious. When Hemanta Mohanta rushed to the rescue of Krutibas, accused Sambhu @ Sadhucharan Mohanta is stated to have dealt a lathi blow on his head, causing a bleeding injury.

It is further alleged that accused Gurucharan Mohanta raised a tangi with the intention of killing Hemanta Mohanta; however, Basanta intervened, caught hold of the tangi and, after a scuffle, snatched it away from him. Similarly, Chaitan Mohanta is said to have snatched away the bow and arrows from Kalicharan Mohanta.

After the incident, the accused persons allegedly left the spot. Thereafter, Chaitan Mohanta, Basanta Mohanta and Srinibas Mohanta took the injured Krutibas and Hemanta to a local doctor, who referred them to the District Headquarters Hospital, Baripada. Krutibas Mohanta succumbed to his injuries at the District Headquarters Hospital, Baripada.

Chaitan Mohanta thereafter lodged a report before the police authorities. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. The case of Kalicharan Mohanta was split up as he was a juvenile at the relevant time. The present impugned judgment concerns the remaining four accused persons, namely Tarachand Mohanta, Gurucharan Mohanta, Sadhucharan Mohanta and Madhucharan Mohanta.

5. The plea of the accused persons is one of complete denial. According to them, they are the lawful owners and possessors of the disputed land and were cultivating the same on the date of occurrence. It is their specific case that the prosecution party, being the aggressors, came to the spot and assaulted them, resulting in injuries to