The appellant along with his brother, Baishnab Charan Chaudhury alias Kuturi, who was the first accused, was tried for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 mother, Jema Bibya, who was the third accused was also tried for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the mother, the third accused, of all the offences with which she was charged.
The dead body was discovered on information given by the appellant.
Both the appellant and his brother appealed to the High Court in criminal Appeal No.
The plea of all the accused was that they are innocent.
The first accused was, at the relevant time, working in the office of the public works department and was residing in P.W.D. quarters at Balasore.
Both accused 1 2 dragged their injured brother to the western part of their house.
The injuries on the head were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
The deceased was staying separately in Balasore.
She saw PW 13, the Receiver, the appellant and the deceased companynting the paddy sheaves that the had been brought by the tenants.
She saw the said two accused assaulting the deceased on the evening of a particular day during the harvest season.
He has also referred us to the evidence of PW 7 to show that the assistance of this witness was asked for by the appellant to carry the dead body to the tank of as also a heavy stone.
Eye witnesses to the occurrence are PWs 9 and 10.
On December 18, 1965, P.W. 13, who was an Advocate and a Receiver appointed in the partition Suit, had gone to the family house of the appellant for taking charge of the paddy from the tenants.
Bauri Babu was killed by his two brothers, Kuturi and Baya.
The prosecution examined witnesses to show that there was a quarrel between accused 1 2 and their brother, the deceased, immediately after the companyrt receiver, P.W. 13 left the house and that after causing the death of Bauri, both the accused, 1 and 2, with the active assistance of their mother, the third accused, threw the body in the tank for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder.
The appellant caught hold of the deceased and the first accused gave lathi blows on his head.
Both the accused, 1 and 2 dragged the body to the back side of the house and put it in a gunny bag, which was brought by their mother, the third accused.
In cross examination, she had stated that she was positive that she saw the first accused beating the deceased on his head with a thenga, while the appellant caught hold of the deceased.
Though she was examined by the police later in the day, she denied any knowledge about the occurrance.
When he was in house, PW 9 told him that the deceased was being assaulted by the appellant and his brother.
She went and informed PW 10.
The appellant and his brother were companyvicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and both of them were also companyvicted of the offence under Section 201, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did number award any separate sentence for this offence.
who gave some assistance.
There was a dispute between the three brothers regarding the family properties and hence the deceased had instituted a suit for partition against accused 1 and 2 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Balasore.
In spite of this, the deceased was given further blows by both the accused as a result of which he died.
The High Court, however, companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellant.
The evidence of the other witnesses will assume importance and significance only if the evidence of these two witnesses is accepted.
After the body was tied in the gunny bag, both the brothers carried the gunny bag, further west of the house and drowned it in a tank after tying a heavy stone on it.
The appellant has companye up to this Court challenging his companyviction.
The State did number challenge the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of the third accused.
She mentioned about the assault in a very loud tone to PW 10 and informed him that both the brothers were beating the deceased.
On information given by the appellant, the body was recovered from the tank and PW.
14, who held the postmortem examination, found as many as 26 injuries.
When the Receiver and the deceased came out of the house, the deceased was called back by the appellant on the ground that he was wanted in the house by their mother.
45 of 1967.
Even after the deceased fell down appealing to the two brothers to let him go, he was beaten by both of them.
The appellant with the members of his family and his mother was, however, staying in the family house.
The State has number challenged the acquittal of the first accused by the High Court.
The High Court by its judgment under companysideration acquitted the appellants brother, the first accused, of both the offences for which he had been companyvicted.
He ran to the house of the appellant saw Sauri lying on the ground with serious injuries He saw both the appellant the first accused dragging the deceased to some distance assaulting him with a lathi.
Immediately after the deceased want back into the house, there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased and soon afterwards the deceased was found lying dead with serious injuries.
After the receiver left, the appellant caught hold of the deceased while kuturi gave blows on his head with a thenga.
We are number inclined to accept the companytentions of the learned Counsel for the State.
The deceased was begging both the brothers to let him go and was assuring them that he would number companye again.
The prosecution case was as follows The deceased, Bhairab Charan Chaudhury alias Bauri was the brother of accused 1 and 2 and the son of the third accused.
The appellant with the members of his family and his mother was staying in the family house.
After the deceased came into the family house, he was questioned by the appellant as to why he cut and removed certain trees from the companypound.
The deceased had also accompanied the Receiver.
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the second accused is against the judgment and order dated October 9, 1969, of the Orissa High Court companyfirming his companyviction for offence under the Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded for the former offence.
