Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 141 (ORI)

Md. Ramjan v. State of Orissa

2014-02-21

D.DASH

body2014
JUDGMENT The appellants separately in above two jail criminal appeals have assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Rourkela in S.T. Case No.151/147 of 2003. By the said judgment the appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 324/458 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay of fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 458 of IPC in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months for offence under Section 324 IPC with the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellants and another faced the trial and all have been convicted and sentenced as above stated. In view of above both these appeals having been heard together and this common judgment is passed. 2.Prosecution case is that on 14.10.2002 around 1.25 P.M. the appellants came with sword and revolver with the accused Santosh coming holding bhujali and they knocked at the door of the house of the informant, P.W.1. As the doors were not opened and instead the informant’s wife asked the identity of the persons so knocking, there ensued exchanges of words and finally it is said that the appellants and the other accused broke open the door and forced their entry. It is said that the appellant Babujan gave blow by means of sword to P.W.1, Md.. Samim, shouting to finish him as he stood as a police informer. It is next stated that the accused Santosh assaulted him by means of bhujali which was caught hold of and then appellant Ranjan showing the revolver at the wife of P.W.1 threatened Samim to return the bhujali which was so returned. It is further stated that appellant Babujan intending to murder P.W.1 though attempted a blow at his neck, the same being warded off saved the life of P.W.1. But P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury on his person for such assault by the appellants and the other accused by means of above noted dangerous weapons. Such severe injuries being caused on the person of P.W.1, his wife raised shout when the appellants and other accused fled away. But P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury on his person for such assault by the appellants and the other accused by means of above noted dangerous weapons. Such severe injuries being caused on the person of P.W.1, his wife raised shout when the appellants and other accused fled away. P.W.1 on his way to hospital having presented the FIR to the police, necessary case was registered and on completion of investigation finally the appellants and the other accused faced the trial for offence under Sections 458/307/34 IPC and have been convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3.During trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses while proving the FIR Ext.1/2, injury report Ext.2, opinion of the Doctor as Ext.3/2 and other documents such as the seizure list etc. The accused persons banked upon the plea of denial and false implication. 4.The trial Court on analysis of evidence both oral and documentary in the touch stone of the settled principle of law with regard to the appreciation of evidence in a criminal case has rendered the finding of guilt against the appellants and another for the offence under Sections 324/34 IPC and under Section 458 IPC and consequentially the sentence as stated above has been imposed. 5.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appreciation of evidence as done by the trial Court is not proper and the evidence of the injured as well as his wife ought not have been accepted as those bristle with improbabilities, more so as there remains no corroboration on material particulars from any independent source. In view of above, it is his submission that the evidence ought to have been put to strict scrutiny which has not been done in this case. Thus he submits that the finding of the guilt rendered by the Court below is to be set at naught and so also the sentence. 6.Learned Additional Government Advocate while refuting the above submission, supports the finding of the trial Court as regards the complicity of the appellants in causing injuries on the person of P.W.1 by mans of sharp cutting weapons. According to him, there surfaces no such justifiable reason to discard the evidence of P.W.1 and his wife P.W.2. It is also his submission that such evidence receives full corroboration not only from the evidence of the Doctor and his report but also other evidence. So he contends that the appeal merits no acceptance. According to him, there surfaces no such justifiable reason to discard the evidence of P.W.1 and his wife P.W.2. It is also his submission that such evidence receives full corroboration not only from the evidence of the Doctor and his report but also other evidence. So he contends that the appeal merits no acceptance. 7.Keeping the rival submission in mind and in the touch stone of settled position of law as stated above, let me proceed to examine the sustainability of the finding of the trial Court as regards the complicity of the appellant. It is seen that P.W.1, the injured has stated that when his wife P.W.2 did not open the door, the appellants and the other accused made forcible entry and then his wife P.W.2 shouted when he came near her. It is next stated by him that appellant Babujan was found there to be holding the sword and appellant Ramjan, a bhujali when accused Babujan, dealt blow on his right shoulder, he suffered bleeding injury. But when he attempted to give the next blow, it being warded off touched a portion of the forehead, simultaneously hit against the wall of the house over which P.W.1 got learned. The role of the accused Santosh as stated is that he gave bhujali blow on his left shoulder joint and next when he attempted to dealt further blows, he caught hold of and snatched away the bhujali from him. The role of the appellant Ramjan is said as that he wanted the bhujali to be returned and threatened to cause gun-shot injury on the head of P.W.2 when only the bhujali was returned. Except throwing suggestion which the witnesses have denied, the defence has not been able to elicit any such fact or circumstances during cross-examination to doubt the testimony of this witness. It has been stated by him that one Gauri and one Balloon Seller were present near at the relevant time but the defence has not been able to take any advantage of the same by bringing such material so as to say that non-examination of these two persons renders the evidence of P.W.1 suspect and for that its fatal to the case of the prosecution. In fact in the absence of anything surfacing in the evidence of P.W.1 showing inherent improbability or infirmity and in the absence of any reason as to why the appellants would be chosen to be falsely implicated, even without corroboration through any other oral evidence but with corroboration coming from the medical evidence, there remains no justification to discard said evidence. Thus P.W.1’s evidence is found to be acceptable in respect to the role of the appellants when the same also gets full corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2 who is none other than his wife besides the FIR narration as is seen from Ext.1/2. P.W.2 has also described the roles of the appellants in the same way as that of P.W.1 and in fact the entire crime scenario as stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2 are consistent and run at par with one another. Even the evidence of P.W.4 provide ample support to the prosecution case to some extent adding one more feather to the cap and that he saw three persons running away and the appellants were among them and that her attention was drawn hearing hulla of P.W.2 as “BACHAO BACHAO”.. Thus on careful scrutiny of evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, no such infirmity or suspicious feature is noticed so as to be eschewed from consideration. The evidence of P.W.9, the doctor further corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as he had noticed two incised wounds on over the left shoulder and the other on the centre of the fore-head of P.W.1 which he reported under Ext.2. The opinion of this P.W.9 runs in affirmative that the injuries are possible by the sword seized in the case and sent to him for examination. In view of above discussion, I do not find any justification to place my disagreement with the finding of guilt for offence under Sections 324 and 458 IPC rendered against the appellants by the trial Court. Therefore, the judgment convicting the appellants for offence under Sections 324 and 458 IPC is hereby confirmed, and so also the order of sentence which is found to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9.Resultantly, the Jail Criminal Appeal is stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed.