Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 775 (ORI)

STATE OF ORISSA v. KRUSHNA CHANDRA PATEL

2009-10-13

A.S.NAIDU, S.K.MISHRA

body2009
JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment dated 13th March, 2000 passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda, in S.T. Case No. 223/ 17/11 of 1996-99 is assailed by the State in this Government Appeal. 2. The prosecution was set to motion on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 29.11.1995 at Laikera P.S. which was registered as Laikera P.S. Case No. 117. According to the F.I.R. on 29.11.1995 at about 6.30 A.M. Jayasankar Patel, who was the father of the informant Amiya Kumar Patel (P.W.17) was going to Kirmira and Sankarabahal for preparation of bricks. On the same day at about 12 noon, information was received by P.W.17 from the boys of the village, that the dead body of his father.Jayasankar Patel, was lying in the middle of the road in between Sankarbahal Halkadhipa and the throat of Jayasankar Patel has been split. On receipt of the information P.W.17 and other family members proceeded to the spot and found the neck of Jayasankar Patel has been cut by means of a sharp weapon. It was further disclosed in the F.I.R. that since Jayasankar Patel had land dispute with accused Krushna Chandra Patel and his brother Sesadev Patel and many criminal cases were pending inter se between them, the aforesaid accused persons have committed the murder of Jayasankar Patel. 3. On the basis of said F.I.R., the O.I.C, Laikera P.S. initiated investigation, went to the spot, examined witness, conducted inquest over the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination in accordance with the disclosure statement made by accused Krushna Chandra Patel, recovered the weapon of offence (axe) from the well of accused Kirtan Naik, other material objects like burnt lungi, shirt and shawl were recovered, statement of different witnesses were recorded u/s 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet in G.R. Case No. 833/1995. Learned S.D.J.M. after perusing the police papers and on being satisfied that prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 4. The plea of the defence was of complete denial.lt is averred that due to past enmity a false case has been foisted against them. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. In order to establish their case, the prosecution got examined eighteen witnesses and exhibited several documents. 4. The plea of the defence was of complete denial.lt is averred that due to past enmity a false case has been foisted against them. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. In order to establish their case, the prosecution got examined eighteen witnesses and exhibited several documents. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.17 was the informant and the son of the deceased P.W.18 was the I.O., P.W.6 was the Medical Officer, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body, P.W.14 was an eye witness to the occurrence, P.Ws.15 and 4 were the witnesses, who were present when the accused Krushna Ch. Patel made the confession before the Police and gave discovery of the weapon of offence and they were also witness to the seizure. P.W.12 was the wife of the deceased, P.Ws.11 and 13 were the relations of the deceased and were post occurrence witnesses and P.W.13 proved the past enmity between the accused persons and the deceased and also with regard to different cases pending against them, P.W.10 was the A.S.I, of Laikera P.S. and was a witness to the seizure of documents, P.W.9 was the Police Constable attached to Laikera P.S., who had escorted the dead body to the District Head Quarter Hospital, P.W.7 was an independent witness to the occurrence, P.W.1 was a witness to the inquest of the dead body made by the Police, P.Ws.2 and 3 were the two seizure witnesses and P.W.5 was Anr. independent witness. 5. Learned Sessions Judge after vivid discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has signally failed to establish its case against the accused Krushna Ch. Patel and u/s 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and against all other accused persons u/s 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and acquitted them u/s 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure The said judgment is assailed by the State mainly on the ground that the Addl. Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at are based more on surmises and conjectures than the materials available on record. It is further averred that in view of the statement of P.W.14, who is an eye witness to the occurrence, learned Addl.Sessions Judge should have found the accused persons guilty and convicted them. 6. Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at are based more on surmises and conjectures than the materials available on record. It is further averred that in view of the statement of P.W.14, who is an eye witness to the occurrence, learned Addl.Sessions Judge should have found the accused persons guilty and convicted them. 6. All the submissions made by the Sessions Court are strongly repudiated by Mr. Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. According to him the Sessions Court has rightly disbelieved the statements of P.W.14 as he had not stated the facts deposed in Court before the I.O. u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Police. According to Mr..Nayak the case has developed from stage to stage and the witnesses deposed the facts which were concocted afterwards. In course of hearing it appears that the main accused, i.e. Sesadev Patel died during pendency of the trial. 7. In order to appreciate the submissions made before this Court, we carefully gone through the evidence, both oral and documentary. The prosecution, as it appears, mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.14, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. It appears that the facts deposed by him in Court were not stated before the Police in course of investigation, as would be evident from the evidence of P.W.18, the I.O. Mahes Sharma, Anr. eye witness, unfortunately died and was not examined. Apart from the statement of P.W.14 the prosecution relies upon.seizure of the alleged weapon of offence, but then, the doctor in course of his examination, on being confronted has clearly stated in Court that the axe which he had examined in course of post mortem was not produced in Court, in other words the axe produced in Court was never shown to the Doctor in course of post mortem or afterwards. That apart, there are also certain discrepancies with regard to the statements of the seizure witness and also the statements said to have been made by the accused persons u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. Perusal of the record reveals that the confession made before the Police alleging the discovery u/s 27 of the Act has not been recorded verbatim and the signature of the accused persons were also not obtained. 8. Reading of the entire evidence further reveals thaj no motive could be attributed to the accused persons. Perusal of the record reveals that the confession made before the Police alleging the discovery u/s 27 of the Act has not been recorded verbatim and the signature of the accused persons were also not obtained. 8. Reading of the entire evidence further reveals thaj no motive could be attributed to the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution has totally failed to establish that the accused persons had any intention to kill Mitha Pradhan. Learned Sessions Judge has vividly discussed the evidence and the conclusions arrived at suffer from no infirmity. It is well settled that the appellate Court should be slow in reversing an order of acquittal and unless there are good and strong grounds the order of acquittal should not be interfered with. (See Banal Singh v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1994 SC 606). It is now well settled that only when the appellate Court after going through the evidence arrives at a conclusion that the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused is extremely perverse and is not reasonably sustainable, it can interfere with the same. It is also no more res integra that if the reasons given and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are found to be just, the Appellant Court may not interfere with the findings and order of acquittal even if on perusal of the evidence the appellate Court feels that Anr. view is possible and the view taken was absurd and otherwise untenable in law and shocking to the common sense. 9. In view of the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution case, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has totally failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. After going through the judgments and the reasoning we find no reason to interfere with the same as the same does not suffer from any perversity. Learned counsel for the State also could not bring to our notice of any pertinent mistake on the face of records. That apart the incident took place in the year 1995. Fourteen years have passed in the meanwhile. After lapse of so many years we are not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal. Accordingly, the Government Appeal stands dismissed. S.K. Mishra, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed