Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 126 (ORI)

Dhaneswar Panda v. Balaram Mahalik

2006-02-14

A.S.NAIDU

body2006
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : This revision has been filed by the in¬formant challenging the order dated 26.9.2005 passed by the learned Asst.Sessions Judge, Jajpur, in S.T. No.97 of 2002 ac¬quitting the accused persons. 2. Admittedly, the accused persons faced trial for commis¬sion of offences under Sections 147/148/307/149, I.P.C. In conso¬nance with an F.I.R. filed on 20.4.2000, G.R. Case No.361 of 2000 was registered in the Court of S.D.J.M., Jajpur. According to the prosecution on 20th April 2000 at about 7.00 A.M. the accused persons forming unlawful assembly and being armed with weapons attacked the informant and others when they were returning after attending call of nature. It is alleged that the informant and his friends sustained severe injuries on their person and the condition of one Dhaneswar Panda was very serious. The plea of defence was complete denial. It is further pleaded that the informant and the prosecution witnesses used criminal force against Kuntala Sahu, wife of the accused, and also out¬raged her modesty and when a case was filed by Kuntala against the informant and others, the present false case has been foisted as a counter blast. In support of their stand they examined certified copies of the formal F.I.R. filed by Kuntala, charge sheet and injury report in G.R. Case No.361/2000. 3. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as thirteen witnesses and exhibited eleven documents. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after vivid discussion of the evidence both orally and documentary came to the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses have contradicted with each other and the evidence of the independent witnesses also do to corrobo¬rate other evidence. The trial Court also observed that there is inconsistency in the ocular evidence with that of medical evi¬dence. It is further observed that the evidence do not implicate any of the accused. On the basis of such conclusion it was held that the prosecution has totally failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused per¬sons were acquitted. 5. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the informant forcefully submits that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at are based on mere surmises and conjectures. 5. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the informant forcefully submits that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at are based on mere surmises and conjectures. According to him the informant who is examined as P.W.2 clearly stated that he was brutally assaulted by weapons and that part of the statement having been corroborated by the medical evidence the Court below has commit¬ted illegality in acquitting the accused persons and, as such, this Court should set aside the order of acquittal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State at length, perused the evidence and other materials. P.W.2 is the informant. According to him he sustained injuries. P.W.9 is one of the eye witnesses. There is lot of discrepancy between the statements of P.Ws. 3 and 4 as to how the occurrence took place. The Statements of P.Ws.5 and 6 who are also occur¬rence witnesses substantially differ from each other. That apart, it appears that in the F.I.R. it is stated that the occurrence took place at 7.00 A.M. but then, the medical reports reveal that some of the injured persons were treated much prior to that time. The injuries sustained by some of the witnesses vis-a-vis the medical certificate and the evidence of the doctor also vary. Thus, there is no corroboration between the medical report, and evidence of the doctor and the injured. All these facts throw a cloud of suspicion in the manner in which the prosecution pre¬sented the case. After going through the records this Court also feels that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The findings arrived at by the Court below are reasonable and in consonance with law. There is also no error apparent on the face of record. I am, therefore, not in¬clined to interfere with the order of acquittal. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Crl. Revision dismissed.