Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 418 (ORI)

Ratnakar Dalei v. Chaturbhuja Sahu

2010-06-24

S.K.MISHRA

body2010
JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. : The petitioner who is the informant in G.R. Case No. 52 of 1991 has assailed the order of acquittal passed by the learned SDJM, Balasore in the aforesaid case. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 19.1.1991 at about 7 to 7.30 A.M. while the injured-P.W.5 coming towards Balasore town from his house all the accused persons and others surrounded him near the Singla Hat (weekly market) in between the shop of one Panchanan and the hullar machine of one Bhalu on the public road. Accused Chaturbhuja asked him why he had written about the High School and then immediately dealt a slap on his cheek as a result of which, the injured fell down and sustained pain in his knee. It is further alleged that the Chaturbhuja lifted him by holding his collar and assaulted him. It is further alleged that the accused persons tied the injured with a rickshaw and assaulted him by fist and slap blows and also by lathies. Accused Chaturb¬huja was declaring that he would kill him. As many people gath¬ered at the spot, the accused persons fled away. P.W.3-informant lifted the injured and while removing him towards police station, the Officer-In-charge arrived there and sent the injured to the hospital. Later on, P.W.3 lodged a written report before the O.I.C. who investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet. 3. The accused persons took the plea of complete denial. To prove its case the prosecution examined seven witnesses. 4. Assailing the judgment acquitting the accused persons, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is material on record to show that the accused persons have committed offence and the judgment rendered by the SDJM, Balasore is erroneous. The learned counsel for the opp. parties, on the other hand supported the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. 5. The scope of revisional Court in a revision against acquittal is limited. The revisional Court in such a case do not sit in a appeal to re-appreciate the evidence. In other words, the revisional Court cannot set aside the order of the acquittal even if he comes to the conclusion which is different from the one arrived at by the learned trial Court. The revisional Court in such case can interfere only when there is strong and compelling reasons for interfering with the findings recorded by the lower Court. In other words, the revisional Court cannot set aside the order of the acquittal even if he comes to the conclusion which is different from the one arrived at by the learned trial Court. The revisional Court in such case can interfere only when there is strong and compelling reasons for interfering with the findings recorded by the lower Court. The revisional Court can interfere in the order of acquittal, if in finds that there has been patent absurdity in appreciation of evidence, or if the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons ignoring evidence on record or in palpable wrong interpretation of Statutes etc. 6. On examination of the judgment rendered in this case by the trial Court reveals that it has taken lot of pains to examine the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution. He has considered the implications of the same. It is further seen that there is direct evidence in this case. The medical evidence runs contrary to the same. In addition, the learned lower Court has also noted that though the occurrence took place in a crowded place, only other witness i.e. P.W.3 is coming forward to depose about the occurrence. In other words there is no other witnesses except P.W.nos. 3 & 5 have been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the learned lower Court has come to a just and proper conclusion and have extended the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. There is no strong compelling reasons to interfere with the factual findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Moreover 19 years has elapsed in the meantime from the date of occurrence. No fruitful purpose will be served by setting aside the judgment of acquittal and remanding the case for further trial. Accordingly, the revision application is dismissed. Application dismissed.