Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 74 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Sudhir Badhei

2015-02-05

D.DASH

body2015
JUDGMENT : The State has called in question the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-Cum-C.J.M.,'Bargarh in S.T. Case NO.131 of 1994 acquitting the respondents of the charge under Sections 148/307/149IPC. . 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 01.02.1994 morning when Govinda (P.W.11) and his son Girish (P.W.1) were going on their bicycles to their land, accused Buthi obstructed the way with a plough share and abused in filthy language. Budhu (P.W.10), the grandfather of P.W.1 rushed there, It is alleged that accused Buthi left the spot and some time thereafter P.Ws. 1,10 and 11 when joined on their own land, all the accused persons came being armed with the deadly weapons with a view to attack them on account of previous grudge. They pelted stone, hurled abusive language and attacked P.W.11 using the weapons. Specifically, it is stated that accused Satyananda gave tangia blow to Govinda and when Budhu warded off the same, he received bleeding injuries on his right thumb. It is also stated that they all received injuries for such pelting of stones. 3. The F.I.R (Ext.1) being lodged by P.W.10 on 01.02.1994 necessary case was registered and investigation commenced. In course of the investigation, injured persons were medically examined; incriminating articles were seized. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. The case of the defence is that of complete denial. It is also stated that P.W.11 wanted to influence the accused Satyananda to settle the particular land in his favour and as he being the convenor of the consolidation of the committee refused, the case has been foisted. During trial fourteen witnesses have been examined from the side of the prosecution and the defence has examined none. Out of them, P.W.10 is the complainant and P.W.12 is his son. P. W. 1 is the grandson of P.W.10 being the son of P.W.11. The medical officers have come to the dock as P.W.s 12 and 14. P.W. 13 is the investigating officer. 4. The trial Court upon analysis of the evidepce and upon detailed discussion has come to conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case so far as these respondents are concerned. In that view of the matter acquittal has been recorded. 5. P.W. 13 is the investigating officer. 4. The trial Court upon analysis of the evidepce and upon detailed discussion has come to conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case so far as these respondents are concerned. In that view of the matter acquittal has been recorded. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that in this case the appreciation of the evidence as made by the trial Court in respect of the roles of the respondents in the incident is perverse and acquittal is thus being the outcome of such perverse appreciation of the evidence and hence cannot be sustained. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits in support of such finding that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are highly unsatisfactory so far as the complicity of those respondents are concerned. According to him, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in arriving at such conclusion which can be never be said to be unreasonable. 6. Before going to re-appreciate the evidence in the light of the contentions as advanced, it is felt apposite to take note of the settled position of law with regard to the scope and power of this Court for interference with the order of acquittal. It has been held in case of Basappa Vrs. State of Karnataka (2014) 57 OCR 1044 that the High Court in an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C is entitled to reappraise the evidence and put the conclusions drawn by the trial Court to test but the same is permissible only if the judgement of the trial Court is perverse. Relying the case of Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and others Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2009) 10 SCC 639, it has been held that the word "perverse" in terms as understood in law has been defined to mean 'against weight of evidence' In 'K' Prakashan Vrs. P.K. Survenderan; (2008) 1 SCC 258 , it has also beer) held that the Appellate Court should not reverse the acquittal merely because another view is possible on evidence. It has been clarified that if two views are reasonably possible on the very same evidence, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt (Ref:- T. Subramaniam Vrs. It has been clarified that if two views are reasonably possible on the very same evidence, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt (Ref:- T. Subramaniam Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu; (2006)) 1 SCC 401) Further, the interference by appellate Court against an order of acquittal is held to be justified only if the view taken by the trial Court is one which no reasonable person would in the given circumstances, take (Ref : Bhima Singh Vrs. State of Haryana ; (2002) 10 see 461) 7. In view of aforesaid, let us now go to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the judging the findings rendered by the trial Court whether is based on perverse appreciation of evidence or not. So far as these respondent are concerned, the evidence has been dealt by the trial Court at para-27 of the judgment. The allegation remains that they all gathered and pelted stones. P.W.1 has named all to have pelted stones upon P.W.11 which is not receiving any support of the evidence of P.W.6. P.W.S is not naming the respondents assigning them with the role of pelting stones. Now P. W.11 does not implicate the respondents and so also P. W.10. In such state of affair the trial Court has found the evidence of the prosecution as regards the presence of these respondents in the place of occurrence to be doubtful and so also their roles and thus has refused to act upon the same. This Court finds no such perversity in appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court in exonerating these respondents of the charges for which they faced the trial. The order of acquittal is thus held not liable to be interfered with. 8. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.