3 and 4 took their trial under the charges namely, the appellants and the third accused Under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and 4th accused Under Section 302 read with 114 I.P.C. The appellants are brothers.
The Trial Court acquitted accused No.
4 abated the companymission of the said offence.
Hence the present appeal by the appellants.
3, namely the father of the appellants Under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months.
These two appellants along with two others, namely, Arakhita Padhan and Pareswar Padhan who were arrayed as accused Nos.
Further the circumstances also indicate that he would number have intended to cause the death of the deceased so as to attract Clause 3 of Section 300 but would have got the knowledge that such injury was likely to cause the death.
The third accused since acquitted namely, Arakhita is the father of the appellants and the 4th accused Pareswara Padhan is the grand father of the appellants.
So far as Ghana Pradhan is companycerned the first appellant , there is over whelming direct evidence supported by the medical evidence, incriminating the first appellant with the offence of murder, thereby making him liable to be punished Under Section 302 I.P.C. simpliciter.
1, 3, 5, 7 and 11 as eye witnesses to the occurrence in question.
PW 12 has opined that both the injuries namely injury on the head as well as the injury on the chest were individually sufficient to cause the death of the deceased.
4 and companyvicted the appellants Under Section 304 I.P.C. and sentenced both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and also companyvicted accused No.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment made in Govt.
According to the evidence, the second appellant Rana Padhan dealt lathi blows on the head of the deceased while the appellant No.
The State on being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court preferred an appeal as against all the accused.
Appeal No.
After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondent and companysidering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the second appellant namely, Rana Pradhan is liable only for an offence of culpable homicide number amounting to murder, punishable Under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. as the evidence is lacking for companycluding that he shared the companymon intention of Ghana Pradhan in causing the death of the deceased.
39/76 on the file of the High Court of Orissa.
1 Ghana Padhan stabbed on the right side of the chest of the deceased with a knife, which injury had passed through the lung.
The charge levelled against these appellants and others is that on 3 4 74 at Kanbar, the appellants along with their father in furtherance of their companymon intention companymitted murder of one Gaja Bohi and the grand father Pareswar Padhan Accused No.
