The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.204 of 2001 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th September, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in S.T. Case No.46/166 of 2000. ---- 1. Jagannath Mahanta @ Lodha; 2. Badha Majhi @ Tudu; and 3. Bidyadhar Behera -versus- …. Appellants State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellants -
Legal Reasoning
Mr.Prakash Ranjan Barik, S.P. Mohanty & S.R. Das (Advocates) For Respondent - Mr.G.N. Rout Additional Standing Counsel CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 20.05.2024 : Date of Judgment : 20.06.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th September, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions CRA No.204 of 2001 Page 1 of 7 Judge, Rairangpur in S.T. Case No.46/166 of 2000 arising out of G.R. Case No.94 of 1998 (T.C. No.880/98) pending on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Rairangpur. By the impugned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellants (accused persons) have been convicted for commission of the offence under section 341/333/379/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, each of them has been sentenced as under:- For the Offence 341 333 379 307 Sentence Simple imprisonment for one month Rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month Rigorous imprisonment for two years Rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Trial Court has further passed the order that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. 2. Prosecution Case:- On 09.03.1998 around 10.30 p.m., Mahamad Iqbal Ahmmed (P.W.5), being injured was admitted at Manda Community Health Centre. The Doctor present there (P.W.4) found grievous injuries to have been sustained by P.W.5. So, the Doctor (P.W.4) Page 2 of 7 CRA No.204 of 2001 lodged a written report with the Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.) of Police attached to Manda Police Out Post. The A.S.I. (P.W.11), having entered the said fact in the Station Diary Book maintained at the Police Out Post, sent the report to the Officer-in-Charge, Bisoi Police Station for its registration and took up the investigation. During investigation, the I.O. (P.W.11) examined the injured (P.W.5) and other witnesses, collected the medical examination reports, seized the incriminating articles and on completion of the investigation, submitted the Final Form placing these accused persons as well as one Purna, who has since been acquitted, to face the trial for commission of the offence under section 148/341/333/379/307/149 of the I.P.C. 3. The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence both oral and documentary followed by their scrutiny, while acquitting one of the accused persons, who had faced the Trial along with these accused persons, namely, Purna Mohanta, while holding these accused persons not guilty for commission of the offence under section 148 of the IPC, has held them guilty for commission of the offence under section 341/333/379/307/149 of the IPC and accordingly, he has been sentenced as afore-stated. CRA No.204 of 2001 Page 3 of 7 4. Mr.P.R.Barik, learned counsel for the Appellants (accused persons) submitted that the Trial Court, without any justification, has accepted the evidence of the injured (P.W.5) in fastening the guilt upon the accused persons. Placing the deposition of the injured (P.W.5), he submitted that everything what have been stated by him during trial are nothing but developments and exaggeration when all those important facts had not been stated by P.W.5. during his cross-examination in course of investigation. He submitted that at a much later point of time, the injured (P.W.5) has gone to implicate these accused persons when he, at the beginning, had not disclosed before anybody about any such role of these accused persons in the said happenings in the incident. He, therefore, submitted that the evidence of the injured (P.W.5), being wholly unreliable, on that ground alone, the prosecution case has to fail. 5. Mr.G.N. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State refuting the above, contended that the Trial Court, upon detail discussion of the evidence, has found the injured P.W.5 to be a reliable and truthful witness and as such no material contradictions surface therein. He further submitted that when there arises no reason for the Injured (P.W.5) to falsely implicate these accused persons against whom he had no axe to grind and, therefore, the Trial Court, having omitted to take note Page 4 of 7 CRA No.204 of 2001 of some minor contradictions, which do not affect the substratum of evidence of the Injured (P.W.5) when that stands corroborated by medical evidence, is absolutely right in convicting the accused persons. 6. Keeping in view the submissions made; I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction and have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses (P.Ws.1 to P.W.11). The documents admitted in evidence (Exts.1 to 9) have also gone through. 7. The injured witness for the prosecution is P.W.5 and he is the star witness in the case. It is his evidence that on 09.03.1998, having called the villagers of Nalua, he had gone to Village-Sana Nalua and on the way, he found these accused persons and that Purna (since acquitted) were carrying hand sawn sized planks. This P.W.5 then blew the whistle and focused the torch light. It is stated that the accused persons then came to see the Injured (P.W.5) and accused Jagannath gave his name to P.W.5. He then says that accused Bidyadhar charged him and dealt lathi blows on his head causing bleeding injury whereafter accused Jagannath dealt a lathi blow on his head. Accused Badha Majhi gave lathi blows on his right fore-leg causing severe injuries resulting his fall leading to loss of sense. During cross- CRA No.204 of 2001 Page 5 of 7 examination, he was confronted with his previous statement recorded in course of investigation where he has stated that four persons were carrying Ralas (sized planks). He gave whistle and focussed torch light whereafter the accused persons came to him and accused Jagannath disclosed his name before him. Although this witness claims to have stated the above before the I.O. during investigation, it has been proved through the I.O. (P.W.11) that the injured (P.W.5) had not specifically stated before him that at first accused Bidyadhar dealt lathi blows on his head and thereafter accused Jagannath dealt lathi blows on his hands, legs etc and accused Bidyadhar dealt lathi blows on his right leg. He admits that P.W.5 had not stated the names of the accused persons. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that he did not know the accused persons before-head and on his question, the accused persons disclosed their names before him at the spot. When he states to have told the names of the accused persons before the Doctor (P.W.4); that P.W.4 does not say so. The Forester, who had accompanied P.W.5 says that it was one Forest Guard, Jayaram Sethi, who had disclosed the names of those accused persons and had identified them at the spot. That Jayaram Sethi has, however, not been examined. So, from the CRA No.204 of 2001 Page 6 of 7 evidence on record, a doubt arises in mind as regards the identity of the culprits, who had assaulted the Injured (P.W.5). In such state of affairs in the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court is not right in relying upon the version of the Injured (P.W.5) in conclusively holding that it is these accused persons, who are the authors of the injuries sustained by the Injured (P.W.5). The prosecution case thus fails for lack of sufficient evidence as regards the identity of these accused persons in participating in the incident, which has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th September, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in S.T. Case No.46/166 of 2000, are hereby set aside. Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 27-Jun-2024 12:13:52 CRA No.204 of 2001 (D. Dash), Judge. Page 7 of 7