The case of the prosecution briefly was that the appellants were in possession of and cultivating the lands of the deceased Narayan and his uncle P.W. 1.
P.W. 7, P.W. 8, the wife of the deceased, and others came to the scene of occurrence.
The broad edge of the weapon had penetrated the intercostal muscle at the back and had torn the pleura and had injured the lower part of spinal border of the right lung.
The weapon point had entered the vertebral canal injuring the spinal membranes and the part of the spinal companyd.
P.W. I then went to the Police outpost at Lachhipur and gave a report.
On September 6, 1969 at about 5 a. m. P.W. 1 and the deceased went to one of the lands in dispute for the purpose of cultivating it.
He also petitioned to the Gram Panchayat.
He also said that the injury would have caused great shock and part of the body would have been paralysed.
Padman was attacking him with a Tangia axe and Bidhu was attacking him with a lathi while Bhagabat was standing near with a spear in his hand.
The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
The Assistant Sub Inspector made an entry in the Station Diary and forwarded it to the Officer in charge of the Police Station at Dungripali.
P.W. 1 was living in a different village from his childhood and it was for that reason his lands were being cultivated by his relatives, the accused.
The long vertebral muscles i.e. sacro spinalis and other longitudinal muscles were cut at the spot.
5 was as follows One cut penetrating injury on the spinal companyumn at the level of the right inferior angle of the scapula extending to the right side of the back size 2.1/3X 3/4X chest wall Vertebra was cut.
After bathing, P.W. 1 again went to the field.
1 and 4 as eye witnesses to the occurrence and also relied upon the oral dying declarations made to P.Ws.
Chest valve was also cut.
After sometime P.W. 1 returned home for a bath leaving the deceased in the field.
He raised a cry whereupon the accused persons left the place.
7 and 8 also.
Cutting of the spinal companyd would have affected the blood circulation and the central nervous system.
1, 7 and 8.
Size of injury lX l/6 X l/6 The vertebral muscles were cut The Doctor, P.W. 13, expressed the opinion that after receiving this injury the victim would number be able to talk and death might be instantaneous.
In this petition he made allegations against the deceased also.
The Sub Inspector went to the village, held inquest over the dead body the deceased having died in the meanwhile , and arranged to send the body for post mortem examination.
On a reappraisal of the evidence, the High Court companyfirmed the acquittal of Bidhu Meher but companyvicted the two appellants as mentioned above.
At the trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.
The State preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal.
The medical evidence shows that the deceased suffered several injuries, of which injury No.
P.W. 1 then gave some water to the deceased and went to the village.
The deceased had sold some and leased out the rest of his lands to the accused.
The deceased repeated the statement which he had made to P.W. 1 to P.Ws.
He found the accused assaulting the deceased.
One crucial circumstance upon which the learned Sessions Judge placed companysiderable reliance was that the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased was such that it was impossible for him to have made the dying declarations attributed to him by P. Ws.
The question for companysideration is whether the Sessions Judge had taken such an unreasonable view of the evidence that the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal.
The interspinus vertebrae were cut.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. Padman Meher and his son Bhagabat Meher who were tried along with Bidhu Meher on a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bolangir Kalhandi but, who were companyvicted, on appeal by the State by the High Court of Orissa under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life are the appellants in this appeal.
1, 7 and 8.
However, according to the case of the prosecution P.W. 1 and the deceased were making companymon cause against the accused.
He informed P.W. 7, the Member of the Panchayat about the occurrence.
A few months before the occurrence P.W. 1 came to the village and got a Panchayat companyvened to recover possession of his lands.
The deceased told him that the two appellants and the son in law of the first appellant whom he did number name, had attacked him.
He went near the deceased.
