Paral @ Anil Kumar Singh vs State of Orissa

Pradip Mohanty, J.—This is the revision of the accused Anil Kumar Singh, who on his conviction u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Petitioner is the son of the elder brother of the injured. There was ill-feeling between them. On 21.4. 1999 at about 8.00 P.M. while the injured was returning home from the market with some grocery, the Petitioner suddenly assaulted him by a sword in presence of his wife, as a result of which, he sustained severe bleeding injuries. Some neighbours arrived at the spot on hearing the cry of the injured''s wife and removed him to hospital for his treatment. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station.

The plea of the Petitioner is of complete denial of the allegation.

In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses and defence examined none. P.W. 1 is the injured, P.W. 2 is the wife of the injured and an eye witness to the occurrence, P.W. 3 is the informant, P.W. 10 is the doctor who admitted and treated the injured in the hospital, P. Ws. 4 and 5 are the witnesses to the occurrence, P. Ws. 7 and 8 are seizure witnesses and P. Ws. 6 and 9 are the Investigating Officers of this case.

The learned Asst. Sessions Judge -cum- C.J.M., Mayurbhanj by his judgment dated 29.9.2001 in S.T. Case No. 79/257 of 1999 convicted the Petitioner- accused u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year with a further direction that the fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to the injured as compensation. Against the said judgment and order of conviction, the Petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 14/55 of 2002/2001 which was ultimately dismissed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada in his judgment dated 7.6.2002 thereby confirming the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. Hence this revision.

Mr. Samantaray, counsel for the Petitioner submitted that both P. Ws. 1 and 2 are in fact the interested witnesses and they tried to develop the prosecution story from stage to stage and, therefore, they cannot be believable witnesses. He further submitted that so far the time of occurrence is concerned, the injured has stated that the incident occurred at about 8.00 P.M., whereas P.W. 3, the informant has stated in his evidence that it took place at about 9.00 P.M., while he was returning from market.

There are catena of decisions that only on the ground of interestedness, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be thrown out. It is also the settled law that some minor discrepancies and contradictions are bound to occur even in respect of truthful witnesses. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 have been corroborated by P. Ws. 3 and 4, the independent witnesses.

Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments since both the Courts below have rightly convicted the Petitioner.

Mr. Samantaray, counsel for the Petitioner, however submitted that the Petitioner and injured are related to each other being nephew and uncle and they are ''Adivasi''. Therefore, a lenient view may be taken on the awarding of sentence.

Considering the above submission, the sentence of R.I. for seven years is reduced to three and half years and the fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine, the Petitioner shall undergo R.I. for two years. The fine amount, if realised, shall be disbursed to the injured- P.W. 1 on proper identification.

With the above modification of sentence, the criminal revision is dismissed.