Dasrath Gond And Ors. vs State Of Orissa

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 15 March, 1955

Coram: Jagannadhadas, J.

In this case the Supreme Court recorded that the appeal was taken up solely to consider the question of sentence. The factual background was taken from the judgment of the High Court and set out as follows: on 25-February-1952 twelve of the appellants together with seven other villagers were tried before the learned Sessions Judge for an offence punishable under Section 302 in conjunction with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the accused, acting in furtherance of a common purpose, murdered a villager named Madan Sahu. The motive alleged by the prosecution was that the accused believed Madan Sahu to be a “Pungnia”, that is, a sorcerer who was thought to be chiefly responsible for a severe outbreak of small-pox in the village. The parties belonged to the village of Badimal in the Badimal police station area of Brajarajnagar, an interior part of Sambalpur district. It was reported that in the early part of 1952 a virulent epidemic of small-pox was striking the village and that the villagers’ attempts to control the disease with the assistance of local charmers, called Bejis, had proved ineffective. The Bejis subsequently informed the villagers that their protective mantras were being nullified because one of the villagers was himself a Pungnia who was counteracting the effect of the mantras. Alarmed by this information, the villagers on 16-January-1952 gathered in a meeting and executed a document (Exhibit 8) whereby they agreed to beat any person who was found to be a Pungnia. The deceased Madan Sahu, several of the appellants and the Gaontia of the village signed this document, and many other villagers either signed it or placed their thumb impressions on it. When the epidemic showed no sign of abating, it was alleged that on 25-February-1952 the appellants, together with some other villagers, suspected that the deceased Madan Sahu was the Pungnia and therefore brought him to the village Bhagbatghar and demanded that he take an oath before the deity affirming that he was not the Pungnia responsible for the small-pox. Madan refused to take the oath, which led to an altercation with some of the appellants. He attempted to leave the Bhagbatghar but was seized by several of the appellants and was repeatedly beaten with blows and kicks. His son, Lokanath Sahu (PW 4), and his widow, Indumati Sahuani (PW 8), tried to intervene and save him, but they were pushed aside by the same appellants. The allegation further stated that after this severe assault in the Bhagbatghar the accused carried the wounded Madan to the courtyard of appellant Chintamoni, which was nearby, and continued to beat him there until he died. Following his death, the body was said to have been removed and discarded in a jungle close to the village. The accused were then committed to stand trial before the Sessions Judge on charges under Sections 302, 149, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Of the accused, seven were acquitted and the remaining twelve were convicted.

In the trial before the Sessions Judge, the accused were convicted under Sections 325, 149 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code, while they were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 149 and 201 of the same Code. For the convictions under Sections 325 and 149 each appellant received a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment, and no separate punishment was imposed for the conviction under Section 120. All twelve convicted persons filed appeals before the High Court. At the start of the appellate proceedings the High Court issued a rule directing each appellant to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced. The appeal and the motion for enhancement were subsequently heard together and argued by counsel.

The learned High Court judges, after examining the evidence and the probabilities, affirmed the convictions of eleven of the appellants and increased their sentences from three years' rigorous imprisonment to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for each. One appellant was given the benefit of the doubt and was acquitted. The High Court observed that a report indicated that one of the eleven convicted persons might have died, but the court expressed uncertainty about that claim. Ultimately only eight of the eleven convicted persons sought special leave to appeal before this Court, and those eight are the petitioners in the present proceedings.

The High Court judgment explained that the enhancement of sentences was principally motivated by the judges’ view that the offence committed by the appellants amounted to murder under Section 302 rather than merely grievous hurt under Section 325. Whether that view was correct was deemed immaterial because the State had not appealed the acquittal and the High Court had retained the convictions solely under Sections 325 and 149. This Court fully agreed with the High Court that, considering all circumstances, the original three-year rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Sessions Judge was insufficient. The post-mortem examination of the deceased, Madan Sahu, conducted by Dr S.C. Rout, revealed ten injuries distributed over the body, including lacerated wounds on both sides of the head, contusions on the face, neck, thorax and abdomen, a fracture of the right leg below the knee, a fractured lower jaw, several broken ribs, six tears in the pleurae beneath the fractured ribs, and a lacerated right lung. All injuries were determined to be ante-mortem, and death was attributed to shock and haemorrhage.

The Court noted that the injuries to the thorax appeared to have been produced either by a hard object, by a blunt instrument such as a lathi, or by the force of fists or kicks. It was further observed that a portion of the victim’s body had been consumed by wild animals; nevertheless, the Medical Officer’s conclusion that the injuries were sustained before death – that is, they were ante-mortem – remained unchallenged by any party. The Court found it evident that the victim had suffered a savage assault carried out by several individuals who acted in a frenzy of superstition linked to a suspicion of sorcery. The nature of the attack, involving multiple assailants and a level of brutality that resulted in numerous fatal injuries, was deemed to call for a sentence that would serve as a deterrent to similar conduct. Accordingly, the Court expressed that it saw no reason to intervene in the sentencing decision of the lower courts, as the circumstances warranted the punishment that had been imposed. Consequently, the appeal filed against the judgment was dismissed, and no further relief was granted.