Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 296 (ORI)

Nunu Babu Soni v. State Of Orissa

2021-07-07

D.DASH

body2021
JUDGMENT D. Dash, J. - The Appellant from inside the jail custody has filed this Appeal in assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in C.T. case No.05/263 of 2014. 2. The Appellant as the sole accused faced the Trial being charged for commission of offences punishable under Section-326(A) of the IPC. The Trial Court in concluding the trial has held the Appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section-324 of the IPC and accordingly he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for a period of two and half years (2 yrs 6 months) and pay of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months (6 months). It is further stipulated that from out of the above fine amount, if so realized, a sum of Rs.4,000/- would be paid to the Informant-victim as compensation. 3. Prosecution case is that on the 2nd day September, 2014, in the morning hours around 8 am, the accused being in a drunken state was seen quarreling in front of the house of the Informant who has been examined as P.W.1. The informant when forbade him to continue as such; the accused got annoyed and having given a slap, threw some liquid on him. With the touch of that liquid, P.W.1 felt burning sensation on his body and thus was taken to the hospital. People of the nearby houses having gathered at the spot, detained the accused. Information as to the incident having been sent to Laxmisagar Police Station, Bhubaneswar within whose jurisdiction, the place of occurrence situates, P.S. Case No.200 of 2014 was registered and the investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, accused was placed for Trial for the offence punishable under Section-326(A) of the IPC. 4. In the Trial, the prosecution in total examined six witnesses. Besides the informant who happens to be the Injured-Victim in the case, other witnesses who had arrived at the spot; the Doctor who had medically examining the Victim (P.W.1) have also been examined. Said Medical Officer is P.W.5 and the Investigating Officer of the case has come to the witness box at the end as P.W.6. Besides the informant who happens to be the Injured-Victim in the case, other witnesses who had arrived at the spot; the Doctor who had medically examining the Victim (P.W.1) have also been examined. Said Medical Officer is P.W.5 and the Investigating Officer of the case has come to the witness box at the end as P.W.6. The Trial Court on critical examination of the evidence let in by the prosecution and upon their evaluation at its level has accepted the case of the prosecution as to the role of the accused in causing said injuries upon the P.W.1 on the relevant date, time and place as noted under Ext.3, the Medical Examination Report. Accordingly, holding the Appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section-324 of the IPC; he has been sentenced as aforestated. 5. I have heard Mr. Sidhartha Swain, learned Amicus Curie. I have also heard Mr. P. Ch. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel.. 6. Learned Amicus Curie submits that the star witness for the prosecution being P.W.1, his evidence is in complete variance on material particulars with the evidence of other witnesses who arrived there just at the time. Therefore, he submits that the Trial Court has committed grave error in accepting the case of the prosecution as presented by P.W.1. In this connection, he has invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of all the witnesses as also that of the Medical Officer, P.W.5, who had examined P.W.1. He, therefore, contends that it is a fit case for interference with the finding of guilt of the accused as has been recorded by the Trial Court. 7. Mr.P.Ch.Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel countering the above contends, all in support of the sustainability of the finding recorded by the Trial Court. According to him, there is no such major discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 and the same is also not at all in variance on any such material particulars with the evidence of other witnesses who had arrived there at the spot. He has also placed reliance on the corroborative evidence as to seizure of bottle containing Nitric Acid from the possession of the accused. Thus, he submits that based on the direct evidence coupled with the said circumstance as proved, there is no escape from the conclusion that the accused is the author of said injuries upon the deceased. 8. He has also placed reliance on the corroborative evidence as to seizure of bottle containing Nitric Acid from the possession of the accused. Thus, he submits that based on the direct evidence coupled with the said circumstance as proved, there is no escape from the conclusion that the accused is the author of said injuries upon the deceased. 8. In order to address the submissions as above, let's first of all approach the evidence of P.W.1. He has deposed that on the relevant date and time, he was going for bath when he found in front of his house that the accused was consuming liquor and his cousin sister and sister-in-law were requesting him not to do so. The accused on the other hand was abusing him in filthy languages. He has further deposed that at that time, when he interfered and protested, he was given slap by the accused. He then bringing a bottle containing some liquid threw at him which gave burning sensations on different parts of his body which had come in contact with the said liquid thrown by the accused. He has further deposed that people then present immediately caught hold of the accused and P.W.1 was sent to the hospital. I have carefully gone through the entire deposition of this P.W.1. There surfaces no such material so as to doubt his testimony with regard to the role of this accused as narrated by him. His evidence is also quite consistent with the F.I.R. (Ext.1) story and thus the evidence of this witness receives full corroboration from the F.I.R. narration. P.W.2 is the father of the P.W.1 and P.W.3 is P.W.1's cousin brother. The medical Officer (P.W.5) upon examination of P.W.1 has found four burn injuries of simple in nature on the chest, elbow and neck. The age of injuries have been stated to be within one and half hour of said examination. The incident having taken place around 8 pm, this P.W.1 was examined at the Capital Hospital by the P.W.5 at 8.35 am. P.W.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. No such material has also come on record to show that this P.W.1 and other P.Ws had any prior enmity with the accused so as to grid axe against him. The accused being restrained by the persons arriving at the spot was arrested shortly after the registration of the case. P.W.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. No such material has also come on record to show that this P.W.1 and other P.Ws had any prior enmity with the accused so as to grid axe against him. The accused being restrained by the persons arriving at the spot was arrested shortly after the registration of the case. The bottle was seized from the possession of the accused and the remaining contents of the bottle had been chemically examined at State Forensic Science Laboratory being sent through Court in sealed condition under Ext.5. The report Ext.6 is clear on the point that the content was concentrated Nitric Acid, highly corrosive to the human body. So, with all the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, as afore discussed, in my considered view, the conclusion as to establishment of the prosecution case as recorded by the Trial Court firmly stands. With such evidence on record, this Court finds absolutely no reason or justification to say that the Trial Court has committed any error in the matter of appreciation of evidence in finally arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused in holding that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section-324 of the IPC. Keeping in view the manner of happening of the incident, the role played by the accused as proved through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence, sentence as imposed by the Trial Court with other direction as to the payment part of the fine amount to the victim are found be well in order. 9. In the result, the JCRLA stands dismissed. 10. The LCR be returned forthwith. 11. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.