BATAKRUSHNA PARIDA versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 923 · Decided: 28-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 923 
_; 
BATAKRUSHNA PARIDA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 2003) 
APRIL 28, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part II) - Occurrence as a 
result of rivalry between villages - Resulting in causing death c 
and injuries - Charge u/s. 302, 307, 148 and 3021149 /PC -
-
Trial Court convicting one accused u/s. 304 (Part II) and,. 
acquitting other accused of all the charges - High Court 
upholding the acquittal order - Order of conviction was altered 
to one u/s. 302 - On appeal by the accused, held: High Court D 
despite holding that the accused fired the shot on the spur of 
the moment and there was free fight amongst the villagers, 
ought not have convicted him uls. 302 - He is liable to be 
· convicted uls. 304 (Part-II). 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal E 
No. 6-7 of 2003. 
... _ 
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.4.2002 of the High 
Court of Orissa Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1984 
artd Govt. Appeal No. 6 of 1985. 
F 
, Satya Mitra Garg, Sangram Patnaik, Sandha Pandy, 
Maphua Bhushan and Sanjeev Kumar Jha for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
-"f 
;DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals 
.. 
is to :the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court 
allowing the appeals filed by the State. Two appeals.were filed 
agai~st the common order/Judgment of Learned Sessions 
923 
H 
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Judge, Dhenkanal in Sessions Trial No.25Dof1983. The Trial 
Court directed acquittal of all the accused persons who were 
~ 
charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 
302, 307, 148, 302/149 of the Indian P,enal Code, 1860 (in 
short the IPC). However the present appellant was convicted 
B 
in terms of Section 304 Part II IPC and was sentenced to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The State 
questioned the acquittal of the respondents as well as the 
conviction of the present appellant in terms of Section 304 Part 
II, IPC in place of the Section 302 IPC. The present appellant 
c filed an appeal questioning the order of conviction. Both the 
appeals were placed together and disposed of by the common 
judgment. 
-
2. The skeletal picture of the prosecution case as 
D 
unravelled during trial is as follows : 
3. Village Saruali is consisted of three hamlets, namely, 
Gopal Sahi, Dehury Sahi, and Parida Sahi. There was no love-
lost between the villagers of Gopal Sahi and Dehury Sahi .on 
one· hand and Praida Sahi on the other. The ·10r1g standing 
E 
enmity existed on account of a dispute over some forest land 
as such land was allegedly under the possession of the people 
of Dehury Sahi. Owing to such animosity the people of Dehury 
Sahi stopped rendering,service to the people of Parida Sahi 
for the last 6 to 7 years ·preceding the occurrence. Since there 
F 
was serious law and order problem, therefore there was a 
proceeding under Section 107, Cr.P.C. and several suits were 
pending between the people of Dehury Sahi and Parida Sahi. 
The respondents in Government Appeal belong to Parida Sahi 
whereas the victim as well as the prosecution witnesses belong 
G to Dehury Sahi and Gopal Sahi. It was alleged that in the night 
of Kumar Purnima falling on 1.11.1982 the Dehury Sahi people 
had carried the image of Goddess Laxmi to the house of Bali 
Parida of Parida Sahi. with whom Dehury Sahi people had 
..... 
developed some friendship. Therefore, the appellant-
H 
respondents who belong to Parida Sahi raided the house of 
BATAKRUSHNA PARIDA v. STATE OF ORISSA 
925 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
.. 
Bali Parida. 
A 
4. On the following day i.e. on 2.11.1982 between 9.00 and 
9.30 A.M. the respondents belonging to Parida Sahi being 
armed with lathis and four muzzle loading guns proceeded to 
Dehury sahi and on their arrival near the house of Banka 
Dehury the appellant - respondent no.1 Batakrushna Parida 8 
fired a gun shot at Sahadev Dehury who was then engaged in 
washing his face in the backyard of Banka Dehury. After 
receiving such gun shot Sahadev fell down with bleeding injury 
and instantaneously died. Respondent Dibakar Parida fired c 
another shot from his gun towards Chhota Dehury as a result 
\ 
of which the latter received injury in his knees. Respondent 
--,.._ 
Sankar Parida fired a shot from his gun towards Gopal Sahi 
and the pellet from his gun, of course, hit on the forehead of 
Athani Das

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.