Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 9 (ORI)

HARIS CHANDRA JANI v. STATE OF ORISSA

2002-01-08

BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI

body2002
BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the order of conviction passed by the learned C. J. M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1984 under S. 307, I. P. C. and the order passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore whereby the petitioner was convicted under S. 307, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story as unravelled during the trial of the case is as fllows : that the injured victim P. W. 3 namely Dinabandhu Jani and also the petitioner-Haris Chandra Jani are two brothers. On the date of occurrence i. e. on 9-6-1994 at 2. 00 p. m. while the petitioner himself was engaged in digging a manure pit near the side of the house of his brother, Dinabandhu Jani (P. W. 3) is said to have gone near the pit and thereafter an altercation ensued between them for which the petitioner being enraged, assaulted P. W. 3 by means of a spade resulting in bleeding injuries. After sometime, injured Dinabandhu was taken to the Papadahandi hospital, where he was admitted as an indoor patient. On the basis of the report lodged by the victim's father, a case under S. 307, I. P. C. was registered against the petitioner and investigation started and after closure of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner. After the matter was committed to the Court of Session, it was tried before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur who relying on the evidence of P. W. 3 as well as the Doctor (P. W. 9) found that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under S. 307, I. P. C. and accordingly sentenced him to undergo R. I. for three years. ( 3 ) ON appeal, the learned Sessions Judge on re-appraisal of the evidence on record has also reaffirmed the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore, undaunted by the concurrent orders of conviction and sentence of the Courts below has filed this revision. ( 4 ) MR. ( 3 ) ON appeal, the learned Sessions Judge on re-appraisal of the evidence on record has also reaffirmed the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore, undaunted by the concurrent orders of conviction and sentence of the Courts below has filed this revision. ( 4 ) MR. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that in this case both the Courts below did not rely on the prosecution witnesses save and except the evidence of the injured (P. W. 3) and also the Medical Officer (P. W. 9 ). It has been further highlighted that even the trial Court ought not to have placed utmost reliance on the testimony of the Medical Officer (P. W. 9), which is discrepant to the evidence of the injured himself. It is submitted that the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for having made an attempt on the life of the injured and the appellate Court, therefore, was swayed away by the observation of the trial Court, without going in detail about the evidence of the prosecution. If we exclude the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we are left only with the evidence of the injured (P. W. 3) which does not support the prosecution case so as to record an order of conviction under S. 307, I. P. C. ( 5 ) MR. Mohanty, the learned Addl. Government Advocate while repelling the contentions of Mr. Mishra has seriously contended that in this case whatever possible oral evidence and circumstances available leading to prove the guilt of the accused have been placed by the prosecution. Even though all the witnesses including the father of the injured were declared hostile, the circumstance placed by the prosecution cannot be said to be false. In this case, there is no reason as to why the injured (P. W. 3) will falsely allege against his younger brother who had no previous enmity with him. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence had correctly held the appellant guilty under S. 307, I. P. C. ( 6 ) AFTER going through the evidence of the prosecution, particularly of the injured (P. W. 3), I find that there was no enmity between the injured and the petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence had correctly held the appellant guilty under S. 307, I. P. C. ( 6 ) AFTER going through the evidence of the prosecution, particularly of the injured (P. W. 3), I find that there was no enmity between the injured and the petitioner. The incident must have evoked out of a sudden impulse arising from the altercation between them which resulted into injuries. One of the injuries said to have been sustained by P. W. 3 was by the blunt side of a spade from which it cannot be said that the accused had attempted on the life of the injured. It is to be also considered that when there was no enmity between them, why this petitioner would have made an attempt on his life. Accordingly, both the Courts should have considered the case of the prosecution to find out whether it does come under S. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence and circumstances of the case are fully justified to arrive at a concluson that the petitioner had assaulted P. W. 3, but had not made an attempt on his life. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded by both the Courts below are altered to one under S. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid premises, in order to meet the ends of justice and particularly since the incident took place between two brothers and the accused belongs to Scheduled Tribe, I deem it proper to convict the petitioner under S. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and direct him to suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 (Rupees five hundred), in default to undergo further R. I. for a period of two weeks. The fine amount shall be paid to injured (P. W. 3) on realisation. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence have been modified and the revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition allowed.