Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 304 (ORI)

Aju Penthei @ Aju Maharana v. State Of Orissa

2021-07-09

D.DASH

body2021
JUDGMENT D. Dash, J. - The Appellant having been convicted for the offence punishable under Section-323/325 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month respectively, which are to run concurrently in Sessions Trial No.91 of 2017 of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anandapur has filed this Appeal from inside the jail custody. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that Ganga Penthei and Padmavati Penthei had four daughters and Gita was the youngest of them. She was given in marriage with the accused. The accused stayed in the father-in- law's house as illatom son-in-law. He was a goldsmith by profession and used to earn his living on daily wages. The couple had happy marital life for two to three years. In course of time, trouble arose when the accused got addicted to liquor and sat idle. His wife being dependent on his income raised protest as to such conduct of the accused. Accused then used to assault her. Situation reached at that level that Gita examined in the trial as P.W.4 had to lodged the F.I.R. stating all those facts giving rise to commission of offence under Section-498-A/323/506 of the IPC. The local police on receipt of the F.I.R. registered the case. Investigation being taken up was completed and charge-sheet was submitted. Again on 10.07.2017 around 9.30 pm as usual, the accused having initiated quarrel with the wife-Gita for no reason, abused her and went on to assault her by means of brick on the back of her head causing bleeding injuries. Father-in-law of accused, Ganga examined in the Trial as P.W.3 when intervened was also not spared. Accused assaulted him on his right leg and head by means of axe having picked up the same from the room where it was lying. He having threatened the victim with dire consequences then fled away from the place. P.W.3 sustained fracture on his right leg and bleeding injury on his head. The matter being informed by P.W.4 at Ghasipura Police Station, P.S. Case No.177 of 2017 was registered and finally charge-sheet was submitted. Thus, the accused was placed for trial for commission of offence punishable under section-498- A/294/325/307/506 of the IPC. In the trial, the prosecution has examined in total fourteen witnesses. The matter being informed by P.W.4 at Ghasipura Police Station, P.S. Case No.177 of 2017 was registered and finally charge-sheet was submitted. Thus, the accused was placed for trial for commission of offence punishable under section-498- A/294/325/307/506 of the IPC. In the trial, the prosecution has examined in total fourteen witnesses. As already stated, wife of the accused has been examined P.W.4 and her father has come to the witness box as P.W.3. The Doctor, who has examined the injured P.Ws.3 and P.W.4, is P.W.10. Other co- villagers have been examined as prosecution witnesses as also the Police Officer, who has investigated the case. The Trial Court on critical examination of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and upon their evaluation at its level has found the accused guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section-323/325 of the IPC. Accordingly, he has been sentenced as aforestated. 3. I have heard Mr.D.K.Patra, learned counsel for the Appellant. I have also heard Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate. 4. In order to address the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant questioning the sustainability of the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court; keeping in view the response from the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court is called upon to relook the evidence on record in ascertaining as to if based on such evidence, the finding of guilt as recorded by the Trial Court is in order or not. Undertaking said exercise, first of all let us go through the evidence of P.W.4, the wife of the Appellant. She has stated that about six months prior to her deposing in Court, during night hours, the accused came and asked for money which she refused, the accused being annoyed assaulted her by means of brick on the back of her head causing bleeding injury. She has further stated that apprehending danger to her life, when she cried for help; her father (P.W.3) arrived and asked the accused to cool down. The accused, however, picked up a Tangia lying on the verandah and dealt a blow with its blunt side on the right leg of her father causing fracture. She has further stated that apprehending danger to her life, when she cried for help; her father (P.W.3) arrived and asked the accused to cool down. The accused, however, picked up a Tangia lying on the verandah and dealt a blow with its blunt side on the right leg of her father causing fracture. Practically, the above evidence of this witness has remained unshaken and during cross-examination no such material has come to surface so as to raise any doubt on her testimony as regards the assault part as well as the factum of sustaining of injury by her and her father. Although, the background facts as stated in the F.I.R. (Ext.6) lodged by the mother of P.W.4, who has been examined as P.W.5, slightly differ from the tendered evidence that in my considered view however cannot be taken to be having any such adverse impact so as to discard the version of P.W.4 as to the role played by the accused. P.W.3 is the father of P.W.4. It is his evidence that first Gita (P.W.4) sustained bleeding injury and when he arrived, he was assaulted on his right leg which got fractured. The Doctor (P.W.10) examining these witnesses (P.W.3 and 4) has stated about said injuries sustained by them as noticed during examination. As per his evidence, the injuries sustained by P.W.3 has been found to be grievous and the fracture aspect has been confirmed on X-Ray examination and the report to that effect. The injury found on P.W.4 according to him are simple in nature. P.W.1 another witness has also fully corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and the evidence of P.W.5, the mother of P.W.4 also provide full support as to the incident and role played by the accused therein. The Trial Court having made detail examination of the evidence from all angles with the surrounding circumstances has failed to search out any doubtful feature so as to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws. This Court finds no such error to have been committed by Trial Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in so far as the guilt of the accused in voluntarily causing simple hurt to P.W.4 and grievous hurt to P.W.3. 5. This Court finds no such error to have been committed by Trial Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in so far as the guilt of the accused in voluntarily causing simple hurt to P.W.4 and grievous hurt to P.W.3. 5. For the aforesaid, the judgment passed by the Trial Court convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 323/325 of the IPC is confirmed and so also the order of sentence. 6. In the result, the JCRLA stands dismissed. 7. The LCR be returned forthwith. 8. 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.