The court established that the assault on the deceased was provoked by a land dispute, determining it constituted culpable homicide rather than murder due to the lack of intent to kill.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The appellants question the correctness of the judgment and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul on 03.04.2001 in Sessions Trial Nos.133-A/1998 (1 of 1998), whereby they were convicted for the offence under Sections 302 /148 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that a piece of government land in village Kampasal in Angul district was under the possession of deceased-Sukadev Dehury. Having heard on the evening of 30.01.1998 that members of Keuta community had raised ridges to encroach upon said land, he, accompanied by his son Sanatan and brother Somanath, went to the spot at about 7.00 a.m. on the next day. Seeing that ridges had been constructed, they dismantled the same with their hands. At that time, the mother of Jharu Behera came and protested, whereupon Biswanath (informant) told her that the land had been measured in the previous year and found to be government land as per the R.I.’s version and that if it was found to belong to the objectors, they would give up the same. Hearing this, the mother of Jharu went away. Half an hour later, accused Jharu Behera, his son Rabi Behera, Bandhu Behera, Chhabi Behera, Thaka Behera, Rathi Behera and Anil Behera being armed with Tablas and Lathis (stick), came to the spot and threatened to kill them. Chhabi assaulted Sukadev by giving a blow with the Tabla on his leg due to which he fell down. When the informant tried to snatch away the Tabla, Chhabi also dealt a blow causing bleeding injury on his thigh. Chhabi then dealt a Tabla blow on the neck of Sukadev. Anil and Thaka also assaulted Sukadev with Tablas. The other accused persons assaulted Sanatan. As a result of such assault, Sukadev died. The informant ran away from the spot and informed his brother, Suresh and thereafter both went to the police station and lodged a report. Basing on such report, Chhendipada P.S. Case No. 6 of 1998 was registered followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons under Sections 147 /148/302/307/149 of IPC .

3. The defence plea was of denial. Additionally, it was claimed that the incident had occurred in course of a quarrel in which the deceased attempted to kill accused-Chhabi.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and proved fifteen documents and seven material objects. The defence examined two witnesses, including accused-Chhabi Behera as D.W. 2.

5. The trial Court found from the evidence on record that there was enmity between the two groups, which was aggravated by the act of the accused persons in raising a ridge on the land which the deceased, Sukadev claimed to be his. When Sukadev dismantled the ridge being accompanied by others, the mother of Jharu, being present, protested and thereafter went away. Evidently informed by her, the accused persons came to the spot armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the deceased and others, causing his death. The trial court found the death homicidal in nature in view of the oral and medical evidence. The contradictions in the evidence of witnesses relating to the number of blows and sequence of the offence were brushed aside by holding that the same was natural, as the witnesses had been examined after a long time. Taking into consideration the evidence of the informant (P.W.1), the injured witnesses (P.Ws.3 and 4), and other post-occurrence witnesses, the trial Court found that there was clear evidence that the deceased sustained injuries due to the assault by the