Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 39 (ORI)

State of Odisha v. Ramakanta Sahu

2018-01-08

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S. K. Sahoo, J. 1. Heard Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. This leave petition under section 378(1)(3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of Odisha challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2009 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge -cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.2/3 of 2005 in acquitting the opposite parties of the charges under sections 147, 148, 447, 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant was the owner in possession of the case land which is situated in mouza Khaparapada and he had cultivated the land and after reaping paddy crops, he had stacked it on the case land. It is the further case of the prosecution that the opposite parties who were in litigating terms with the informant, entered inside the case land on 04.12.2003 in the morning hours and started removing the straw in spite of the protest of the informant and his younger brother. The opposite parties were armed with deadly weapons and they chased the informant and his brother and when the younger brother of the informant namely Harihar fell down on the ground, the opposite parties assaulted him on his legs and hands with the deadly weapons for which he sustained injuries on his legs, hands and head and also sustained fracture of his hands and legs. When the villagers intervened, the opposite parties left the spot. The injured was shifted to Bhadrak Medical and a written report was presented before the officer in charge of Dhusuri police station and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. 4. During course of trial, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, out of which P.W.2 is the informant and P.W.6 is the injured. 5. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record has been pleased to hold that the parties were in litigating terms and the charges under sections 147/148 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code have not been established by the prosecution. It is further held that the medical evidence goes to show that some minor injuries were sustained by Hari Sahu, the informant’s brother. It is further held that the medical evidence goes to show that some minor injuries were sustained by Hari Sahu, the informant’s brother. It is further held that Ext.4 which is the injury report of the injured Hari Sahu discloses that the x-ray of the right hand of the injured was done which is not the evidence of the prosecution nor any eye witness has stated about the fracture of right middle finger of the injured. It is further held that there is no opinion furnished by the doctor or any other witnesses that the injury sustained by the injured can cause death of a person. 6. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has been pleased to hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish the case against opposite parties for any of the offences alleged and acquitted them of the charges under sections 147, 148, 447, 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate placed the impugned judgment and contended that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in not properly appreciating the evidence on record which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, the order of acquittal should be set aside. 8. Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the opp. parties on the other hand supported the impugned judgment. 9. In case of Babu -Vrs.-State of Uttar Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 308, it is held that in appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court unless the conclusions are not possible. If the finding reached by the trial Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable, the appellate Court should not disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material on the record because the trial Judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is not weakened by his acquittal. The appellate Court, therefore, should be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial Court and if two views are reasonably possible on the evidence on the record, it is not expected to interfere simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by it. 10. Considering the materials available on record and after going through the impugned judgment, I find that the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge are unreasonable and there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court has come to a just conclusion and acquitted the opposite parties of all the charges. 11. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant leave to the State of Orissa to prefer any appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Accordingly, the CRLLP petition stands dismissed.