Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 431 (ORI)

Nilamani Sahu v. State of Orissa

2010-06-25

S.K.MISHRA

body2010
JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. : Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Learned counsels for opposite parties are present. From the order-sheet it is seen that counsel for the petitioner is not appearing for the last several dates. Since this is a Criminal Revision, it should not be dismissed for default. Instead, this Court heard the learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3 and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel and perused the record for passing a reasoned order. 2. The petitioner assails the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in S.C. No. 20/353 of 1955. The prosecution alleged that on 22.06.1994 at about 8 A.M. while Nilamani Sahu of village Nimapara was gossiping with his co-villager Kabiraja Sahu by sitting on a cot on the verandah of his Ice factory, the accused persons came and wanted to lock up the factory. When Nilamani Sahu protested, accused Surendra Sahu caught hold of him and accused Kulamani Sahu dealt a blow on his head by sharp side of a kati causing bleeding injury. On such blow, the injured fell down and became unconscious. Later on, he regained sense. On that date itself Nilamani Sahu reported this fact before the Officer-in-charge, Buguda Police Station and on the basis of his report, investigation of the case was started and charge-sheet was submitted against the present opposite parties for the offence under Sections 307/34, I.P.C. 3. Prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case, whereas the defence examined none. After taking into consideration the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and judging the same in the light of the defence case, the learned Asst. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case by convincing evidence that the accused persons had made an attempt on the life of the informant-petitioner. Careful examination of the judgment and the evidence available on record reveals that the learned trial Court has taken into consideration the following salient features of the case in coming to the conclusion as described in the preceding paragraphs. (i) There was previous enmity between the parties. (ii) A counter case was initiated against the petitioner i.e. the informant and others. (i) There was previous enmity between the parties. (ii) A counter case was initiated against the petitioner i.e. the informant and others. (iii) There is contradiction between the medical evidence and the oral evidence in the sense that the eye-witnesses state that the accused dealt a blow by means of a sword on the head of the injured, whereas the medical evidence reveals that such injury can be possible by a hard and blunt weapon. (iv) The Medical Officer also found another injury on the shoulder of the injured, which has not been stated by any of the witnesses. (v) Admittedly, there were injuries on the palm of the ac¬cused Kulamani, but the prosecution has not made any attempt to explain the injury on his head. (vi) The only independent witness i.e. P.W.2 namely Kabiraj Sahu has not supported the prosecution case in material aspect and has been treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution. 4. Taking into cumulative effect of all the salient features, the learned Asst. Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. 5. The scope of the revisional Court in a revision against acquittal is limited. In such a case, the revisional Court is not required to have a threadbare re-appreciation of the evidence like an appellate Court. Even in cases where the revisional Court comes to a different conclusion than the finding of the trial Judge, then also order of acquittal is not interfered with. The initial presumption that every accused is presumed to be innocent till the offence alleged against him is proved beyond all reason¬able doubt becomes stronger in case a judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. So, unless there is very strong and compelling reason, the revisional Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The revisional Courts generally interfere in a case of acquittal where the trial Court has ignored evidence on record or misinterpreted the provision of law or his appreciation of evidence is totally perverse, contrary to all cannons of inter¬pretation etc. In this case, there is no allegation that the learned trial Court ignored material evidence on record nor there is any allegation that his appreciation is perverse. In this case, there is no allegation that the learned trial Court ignored material evidence on record nor there is any allegation that his appreciation is perverse. Therefore, this Court does not find any strong and compelling reasons for interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the Revision application is without merit and the same is dismissed. Send back the L.C.R. Revision dismissed.