The Sessions Court, on analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties, decided that there were little companytradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of Ws.1,7,6,9,11 and 12 on the aspect of presence of P.W.1 at the spot, and threats given by the accused Sanatan or other male accused persons to P.W.7.
Learned companynsel for the respondent, on the other hand, companytended before us that while modifying the sentence and maintaining companyviction, the Trial Court and the High Court have believed the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses and have opined that the prosecution has fully proved the case by leading credible evidences of credible witnesses.
The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the Government appeal and companyvicted the appellant for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
Thereafter, accused Debendra and Upendra caught hold of Rajib, the second son of Brundaban Pradhan and accused Rabindra dealt axe blows and killed him.
Accused Debendra dealt a blow with axe on Brundabans head.
The Statements of P.W.1 and P.W.6, stating that the part played by Upendra in catching deceased Pravasini, are number in companyformity with each other.
The defence examined one witness D.W.1 Damodar Pradhan.
The local Sarpanch informed the matter to Jujumura Police Station.
Thereafter, the three sons of the accused Sanatan Pradhan focused their attention on his children and Upendra and Debendra caught the eldest son Sanjib from both sides and accused Rabindra dealt axe blows causing injuries on the neck and other parts of the body.
The Additional Sessions Judge also numbered that the evidence of P.W.12 preparing Biri on the verandah of Kulamani Budhia, had number been challenged by the prosecution to the extent of her finding accused Upendra absent from the place of occurrence.
Thereafter, Panchayat meetings were held on 27.8.93 and 29.8.93 and it was decided that Brundaban shall companylect the Patta from his mother and hand over the same to Sanatan Pradhan.
According to the prosecution version, the entire incident was witnessed by P.W.1 the mother of the deceased, and P.W.6 and P.W.12.
When the villagers came out on hearing the shout of P.W.1, the accused persons decamped and P.W.1 brought all the three deceased children from inside the room to front side of the house.
Therefore, the order of the Trial Court in recording the companyviction of the appellants was sustained.
The facts pertinent to the present case, as unfolded by the prosecution, are that Upendra Pradhan, Debendra Pradhan and Rabindra Pradhan are sons of Sanatan Pradhan and Jamadevi is his wife.
However, in the matter of death sentence, the High Court was of the view that the circumstances behind the crime were good enough to take a lenient view and accordingly it awarded sentence of imprisonment for life.
However, the evidence of P.W.12 preparing Biri on the verandah of Kulamani Budhia has number been challenged by the prosecution to the extent of her finding the accused Upendra absent from the spot.
In view of the death sentence imposed against the Sanatan and Rabindra, the Trial Court made a reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.
It was brought to our numberice that the appellant has already undergone the sentence for a period of about 8 years in jail.
No sooner did Brundaban enter his house and asked his children to sleep on companys, than the accused Rabindra, Debendra and Upendra, each armed with axe and lathi, rushed towards them.
On the basis of this information, investigation was made, charge sheet was filed and after the case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed under Section 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
P.C. and that was registered as Death Sentence Reference No.1 of 1994.
Brundaban started bleeding profusely and groveled into the house of Kulamani Budhia nearby.
Sanatan Pradhan got angry and declared to ruin his family.
It was further companytended that the Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted the appellant along with his mother and held that the female accused had been implicated on an exaggerated version of P.W.1 number supported by independent companyroboration.
Accused Sanatan Pradhan and his family members bore grudge against Brundaban for number companyplying with the direction of the Panchayat.
A Division Bench of the High Court analogously heard the Reference and Jail Criminal appeals and disposed of the same on 27.03.1995.
The appellant has further taken the plea of being a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000, and accordingly under Section 7 a raised the claim of juvenility before the Court and stated that the High Court had recorded this aspect but did number act upon it.
They possessed land on an amicable division.
Accused Rabindra dealt two blows on his neck and head with axe.
However, the High Court reversed the decision taken by the Additional Sessions Judge, and held that when accused Upendra is a party to the murder of three innocent children, he is guilty like other accused persons for offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The High Court recorded that the accused should be awarded appropriate punishment instead of taking any other view, and companyvicted Upendra under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, because that is the alternative and lesser punishment as provided in Section 302 I.P.C. The High Court ordered the appellant Upendra Pradhan to be taken into custody to serve the sentence.
In the meantime, by virtue of the High Courts order accused Upendra Pradhan was on bail.
Accused Sanatan, Debendra and Rabindra also preferred appeals from jail in 1994.
Fearing for his life, Brundaban along with his family left his house and stayed in the house of Keshab Pradhan P.W.10 of his village.
The High Court pointed out that the prosecution allegation against the accused Jema Devi was relating to the instigation whereas against the accused Upendra in making active participation in the murder of three children.
He became unconscious.
According to the prosecution story, a dispute arose between Sanatan Pradhan and his younger brother Brundaban when Brundaban did number yield to the request of Sanatan Pradhan to hand over the Patta of their lands to procure a loan as the Patta was with the mother.
At about 8 P.M. on 29.8.93, Brundaban along with his three children, Sanjib, Pravasini and Rajib and wife Radha Pradhan P.W.1 , returned to his house.
Sanatan Pradhan and his younger brother Brundaban are having title deeds of their lands standing in their names jointly.
The female accused had been falsely implicated in this case on exaggerated version of P.W.1, number supported by independent companyroboration.
In this Court the Counsel for the appellant companytended that after the incident took place, the local Sarpanch informed the matter to the Police Station and after investigation, charges were framed under Sections 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. There was, however, numberspecific finding against the present appellant.
Brundaban Pradhan in severely injured companydition was lying senseless in a neighbours house.
P.C. as against the judgment and leave was granted on 15.05.1995 and the Government appeal was registered in the High Court.
Then the accused Upendra caused injuries on the girl child Pravasini and killed her.
In the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, to bring charges home to the accused persons, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom, W.1 is the wife of the injured P.W.7 and mother of the deceased, Ws.6, 8, 9, 11, 12 are local persons, P.W.3 to P.W.5 are doctors, W.10 and P.W.13 are police companystables, P.W.14 is the I.O. and P.W.15 is the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sambalpur.
On these ground the Additional Sessions Judge gave the benefit of doubt to the Upendra Pradhan appellant herein and Jema Devi and did number find them guilty under Sections 307 and 302/34 of IPC.
On seeing them, the accused Sanatan and Jama Devi called out the other accused persons.
The State thereafter filed leave application under Section 378 1 Cr.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. This appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.9.2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Government Appeal No.18 of 1995, filed by the State against the acquittal of the appellant herein.
The defence witness D.W.1 has excluded the presence of accused Sanatan at the place of occurrence as both of them went home from Fuljijaran and accused Sanatan was with him from 7 P.M. to 9 or 10 P.M. The Additional Sessions Judge held that the three male persons were guilty.
The Court has given benefit of doubt to the appellant as the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.6 about the part played by Upendra in catching the deceased Pravasini, are number in companyformity with each other.
