Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 79 (ORI)

Radhu @ Radhua Bhutia v. State of Orissa

2014-01-30

D.DASH

body2014
JUDGMENT The appellant in this jail criminal appeal has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.08.2004 in C.T. Sessions No.13/137 of 2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kamakshyanagar, wherein he having faced trial for offence under Sections 341/324/307, IPC has been convicted for the offence under Sections 324/326, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years and 3 years respectively, running concurrently. 2.Case of the prosecution is that on 14.11.2003 during noon hours, Keshab Ch. Sahu (P.W.2) had been to the shop of one Sunil Sahu (P.W.3) of his village. During then hearing some shout near the village road informant Manorama Sahu (P.W.1) who is the sister of P.W.2 came out of his house and found that P.W.2 coming with bleeding injury when villagers were following. He being asked, immediately disclosed implicating the appellant to have dealt bhujali blows in causing said injuries on his person. The injured (P.W.2) was then taken for treatment. It is further stated that when P.W.2 was sitting at the shop of P.W.3, the accused came from behind and assaulted him by means of bhujali. So information being lodged at Police Station, necessary case was registered and finally on completion of investigation, the appellant faced trial for the above offences and has been convicted and sentenced as above. During trial, the appellant banked upon the plea of false implication. Prosecution examined in total 11 witnesses while proving the F.I.R. Ext.1, injury report Ext.4 besides other documents such as seizure list. 3.The trial Court on analysis of evidence has accepted the evidence of P.W.2 receiving due corroboration from evidence of other witnesses as well as the Ext.1 (F.I.R.) and has ultimately rendered a finding of guilt against the appellant for offence under Sections 324/326, IPC while acquitting him of the offence under Section 307 IPC holding that the appellant had not intended to cause the death of the injured taking into consideration the facts and circumstances right from the beginning of the happening of the incident till end. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses properly and there is no thread bare analysis and in a cavalier fashion has gone to render the finding of guilt against the appellant for offence under Sections 324/326 IPC. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses properly and there is no thread bare analysis and in a cavalier fashion has gone to render the finding of guilt against the appellant for offence under Sections 324/326 IPC. According to him, the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence and there has been failure on the part of the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Thus he urges that the judgment of conviction and sentence is to be set at naught. Learned Additional Government Advocate refuting the submission supports the finding of guilt rendered by the Court below and it is his submission that the witnesses have gone to depose in a very natural manner and there appears no such discrepancy nor there remains any infirmity in such evidence so as to say that the evidence fall short of the test of trustworthiness. According to him no such reason also surfaces as to why the appellant would be chosen to be falsely implicated in this case and arrayed in the trial. It is also his submission that oral evidence of injured witness P.W.2 gets ample corroboration from medical evidence and evidence of other witnesses and therefore there remains absolutely no ground to unsettle the said finding of the guilt. 5.In view of the above rival submission, let me now proceed to examine the sustainability of the finding of the guilt rendered by the trial Court as against appellant for offence under Sections 324/326 IPC upon analysis of the evidence led in by the prosecution. As already stated P.W.2 is the injured and is the star witness for the prosecution. It has been stated by him that when he was sitting in the betel shop of P.W.3 in their village, the appellant came from behind holding a bhujali and assaulted him by means of that bhujali on his neck, head and back, causing serious bleeding injuries. It is stated that the appellant then fled away. The doctor has been examined as P.W.9. He has stated during his examination to have noticed five incised injuries on the person of P.W.2. So, the medical evidence provide due corroboration to the evidence of P.W.2. It has been stated by P.W.9 that one of such injury was grievous in nature. The report of the doctor has been marked as Ext.4. He has stated during his examination to have noticed five incised injuries on the person of P.W.2. So, the medical evidence provide due corroboration to the evidence of P.W.2. It has been stated by P.W.9 that one of such injury was grievous in nature. The report of the doctor has been marked as Ext.4. P.W.2 has been put to scathing cross-examination. But I find that no such material has been brought out to entertain doubt in his testimony with regard to the role of the appellant in causing injuries on his person. This P.W.2 has stated that at the first instance he could not see the appellant dealing blow from the behind but when he turned around, he could see him assaulting from behind by dealing blows with bhujali. It has also been stated by P.W.6 that he had disclosed about the said fact to others. P.W.1 is the informant and she has stated that her brother P.W.2 in an injured condition, immediately disclosed about the incident on his arrival near the house and then about the authorship of the injuries on his person attributing the same to this appellant. She has denied the suggestion to have been deposing falsehood. P.W.3 the owner of the shop where P.W.2 was sitting has also in categorical term stated that it is the appellant who assaulted P.W.2 by means of a bhujali on his back, shoulder, arm, resulting bleeding injuries. The evidence of the witnesses have remained unshaken. Besides the above, seizure of lungi, and napkin of the injured and also the weapon of offence bhujali from the appellant under seizure list Ext.6 stands proved. The doctor (P.W.9) has also given his opinion to the effect that the injuries found on the person of the P.W.2 was possible by the bhujali placed before him sent for examination. 6.In view of above discussion and in the absence of any material being brought out from the lips of any of the prosecution witnesses to show for a moment that their version are not credible, I find no illegality in the finding of the trial Court in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 326/324 IPC while also appears to have been arrived at by the trial Court on proper analysis of the evidence. Therefore, the said finding is hereby confirmed along with the order of sentence which is found to be appropriate and commensurate with the nature of the offence when seen together with its manner of commission. 7.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.