Skip to content


Mandangi Samburu Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberJail Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1981
Judge
Reported in1985(I)OLR271
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302 and 304
AppellantMandangi Samburu
RespondentState
Appellant AdvocateB.L.N. Swamy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateN.C. Panigrahi, Addl. Govt. Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
- state financial corporations act, 1951 [63/1951]. section 29; [p.k. tripathy, a.k. parichha & n.prusty, jj] discharge of loan orissa forest act (14 of 1972), section 56 confiscation of vehicle - held, the authorities under section 56 of the orissa forest act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of orissa state financial corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the orissa state financial corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the..........him should be reduced to the period already undergone as the appellant has been in custody and has undergone imprisonment for over four and a half years.2. the occurrence had taken place on the spur of the moment after a sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over the distribution of jack fruits of a tree. the co-accused palaka durmaya, who also stood trial and was accquitted, intervened and at this, the deceased attempted to assault the co-accused by means of stick which was snatchel away by the co-accused who assaulted the deceased as a result of which he fell down. the appellant then assaulted the deceased on his head by means of a stone without any pre-plan of pre-meditation and his unfortunately resulted in his death. as has been submitted at the bar, the appellant.....
Judgment:

B.K. Behera, J.

1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'Code') for having committed the murder of Mandangi Arjun (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') on March 8, 1980, in village Lenda in the district of Koraput, by hitting his head by a piece of stone (M. O. II.) and causing injuries which resulted in his death and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The findings recorded by the trial Court that the deceased died a homicidal death and that the appellant had assaulted the deceased on his head by M. O. II, as deposed to by P. W. 2, the sole witness to the occurrence, have not been assailed. Mr. Swamy for the appellant has submitted that the case against the appellant would come under the purview of Section 304 part II of the Code and the sentence passed against him should be reduced to the period already undergone as the appellant has been in custody and has undergone imprisonment for over four and a half years.

2. The occurrence had taken place on the spur of the moment after a sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over the distribution of jack fruits of a tree. The co-accused Palaka Durmaya, who also stood trial and was accquitted, intervened and at this, the deceased attempted to assault the co-accused by means of stick which was snatchel away by the co-accused who assaulted the deceased as a result of which he fell down. The appellant then assaulted the deceased on his head by means of a stone without any pre-plan of pre-meditation and his unfortunately resulted in his death. As has been submitted at the Bar, the appellant belongs to an aboriginal tribe and persons belonging to such tribes are easily inflammable by nature. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant had the intention of causing the death of the deceased. It would be reasonable to hold that the appellant had the knowledge that by his act, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. The appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Code.

3. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of conviction and the sentence passed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside and in lieu thereof, he is convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith.

D.P. Mohapatra, J.

4. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //