Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 48 (ORI)

Sunakar Pradhan v. Jadumani Rout

2015-01-22

D.DASH

body2015
JUDGMENT The complainant as the appellant has called in question the order dated 13.02.1991 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kendrapara acquitting the respondents for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. in ICC Case No. 151 of 1988 (T.C. No. 18 of 1989), they have facing the trial. 2. The case as laid in the complaint petition is that on 30.03.1988 morning around 6.00 am, when the appellant was standing in front of the house of the respondents, respondent no. 1 first dealt him fist blows at the root of his left ear and then over the chest. This is said to be on account of prior enmity. It is next stated that respondent no. 2 and 3 thereafter gave him slaps and pushes. They also dragged him towards their houses, when due to the intervention of local persons, they left the place. The appellant was medically treated for the injuries and thereafter filed the complaint. The delay in filing the complaint is said to be on account of progress of talk settlement in the matter at the instance of village gentries. 3. The case of the respondents in that of complete denial. 4. During trial, the appellant examined altogether four witnesses, whereas respondents have examined none. The medical certificate showing the treatment of appellant has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext. 1. 5. The trial Court on analysis of evidence and upon their evaluation has arrived at a conclusion that there has been failure on the part of the appellant ot establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appreciation of evidence as done by the trial Court is wholly perverse and therefore, the finding as above being the outcome of such perverse appreciation of evidence has to be set at naught. He has placed paragraph 6 & 7 of the judgment of the trial Court in support of his submission. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supports the finding of the trial Court asserting the same to be based on just and proper appreciation of evidence. According to him, the trial Court having rightly weighed the evidence has arrived at a view as regards the non-establishment of the case by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that under no circumstances can be said to be unreasonable. According to him, the trial Court having rightly weighed the evidence has arrived at a view as regards the non-establishment of the case by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that under no circumstances can be said to be unreasonable. So, according to him, on the face of the said evidence simply because a different view can be taken, it is not permissible to set aside the order of acquittal. 7. On the aforesaid submission and keeping the settled position of law with regard to the interference with the order of acquittal in an appeal of this nature, it has now become necessary to look at the evidence on record. P.W. 3 is the appellant himself, who has stated about the role of the respondent no. 1 assaulting him by slaps over his left ear and fist blows over the left chest and also about the other respondents giving slaps and pushes from his back resulting his fall and then about the dragging by all the respondents. He claims to have been medically examined, and he states to have sustained three marks of injuries at his person, all to be swelling injuries. P.W. 1 states that respondent no. 1 gave the slaps on left cheek of the P.W. 1 and fist blows of his chest. He has next exaggeratedly stated that other respondents dealt fist blows and took P.W.1 towards their house by physically lifting. The evidence appears to be contradictory. When he states that due to the slaps by respondent no. 1, there were marks on the cheek of P.W.1, the same is not stated by P.W.1 himself. When P.W. 2 and other witnesses states that no such swelling injuries were there on the person of P.W. 1. In addition to the above, there remains the delay in lodging the complaint. As regards that P.W.1 is stating nothing in support of the explanation given in the complaint petition, so also the P.W. 2. In a general manner, P.W. 3 gives the explanation. Such explanation is not acceptable. Admittedly the parties were having prior enmity. In such state of affairs in the evidence, the view taken by the Court below that the appellant has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt cannot be said to have been the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence calling for interference in this appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. In such state of affairs in the evidence, the view taken by the Court below that the appellant has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt cannot be said to have been the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence calling for interference in this appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.