AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Order of acquittal passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bargarh on 18th January, 1992 in Sessions Trial No. 76/27 of 1989 is under challenge both in Government Appeal as well as in the above noted Criminal Revision.
Prosecution case is that possession of land in Chaka No. 23 of village Topapada under Attabira Police Station, in the district of Sambalpur was delivered to Bira Kishore Mohapatra (P.W. No. 21) and his son Satyabrata Mohapatra alias Muni, the deceased on behalf of Nilambar Pujari, father-in-law of P.W. No. 21. On 15.7.1988, P.W. No. 21 and his deceased son and few friends of his son, namely, Sunil Kumar Behera (P.W. No. 5), Govinda Behera (P.W. No. 4), Prasanna Kumar Padhi, Narasingh Hotta, Saroj Kumar Swain (P.W. No. 3) and two to three Ors. went to the aforesaid land and started ploughing it. The land being in possession of accused Shyam Sundar Pradhan (since dead) and as he had already ploughed and cultivated the same, three female members of his family raised protest, which gave rise to the quarrel. According to the allegation in the F.I.R., all the accused-Respondents together with deceased Shyamsundar Pradhan being armed with axe, sword, knife (gupti) and lathies attacked the informant party and in the process deceased was done to death and witness Saroj Swain (P.W. No. 3) sustained fracture injury on his right palm with multiple bleeding injuries. Deceased was shifted to V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla and in the Casualty Department, he was declared dead. On receipt of this information by the local police at Burla, the matter was processed in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure and investigation was taken up by the concerned police officer (P.W. No. 22). During the course of investigation, he requisitioned for test identification parade in respect of the accused persons, inasmuch as, in the F.I.R. P.W. No. 21 described that he would be able to identify the accused persons on whom he had not named in the F.I.R. The T.I. parade was accordingly conducted. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and on commitment the accused persons were charged for the offences punishable u/s 323/34, 302/34, 147/148/447/34 I.P.C. and faced trial thereunder.
Accused persons took the plea of denial to the allegation of assault by them to the deceased and P.W. No. 3. However, they stated that when the ladies from the family of Shyamsundar were misbehaved, there was altercation between the deceased and the field labourers employed by Shyamsundar Pradhan in his land and in that mutual fight the deceased sustained the injuries.
Prosecution relied on the evidence of 22 witnesses and documents marked Exts. 1 to 30/3 and various material objects including the weapons of offence and wearing apparels, etc. Accused persons relied on the F.I.R. in the counter case, Ext. A, charge-sheet, Ext.B, seizure lists, Ext. C and the injury requisitions, Ext. D and E.
None of the eye-witnesses examined in the case except P.W. No. 21, supported the charge against the accused persons and many of them stated that the deceased was assaulted by the Chhatisgarh labourers employed in the field of Shyamsundar Pradhan. The other eye-witnesses stated that deceased was attacked by a group of persons but they did not name any such persons. No effort was made by the prosecution to bring out their names in course of putting leading questions with the permission of the Court. P.W. No. 21, however, made statement implicating the accused persons in one way or other with the occurrence so as to attract Sections 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C. read with Section 302 I.P.C. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are official witnesses. Accused-persons did not adduce any oral evidence.
On perusal of evidence of P.W. No. 6 and the post mortem report, Ext.4, the trial Court came to conclusion that the deceased suffered homicidal death. There is no dispute to that assertion of the prosecution either at the time of trial or even before us. Thus, prosecution has been able to prove that deceased suffered homicidal death.
On examination and analysis of other evidence on record both oral and documentary, trial Court found that none of the witnesses including the friends of the deceased or the local inhabitants as the eye-witnesses supported the prosecution to sustain the charge against the accused-persons. It is only P.W. No. 21, father of the deceased, who deposed making the allegation of assault against the accused persons. The trial Court assessed and found evidence of P.W. No. 21 to be not credit worthy because of (i) the discrepancies, (ii) lacunas and (iii) the fact that he (P.W. No. 21) is interested for the prosecution which are apparent on record. The detailed analysis of the same will be mere repetition of the reasoning assigned in the lengthy judgment of the trial Court.
Circumstances emerging from evidence proves that there existed dispute for possession of the disputed land and therefore on the date of occurrence he had gone to land with his son and a group of supporters, but there is no clear picture emerging as to who was the aggressors at the spot. In any event, the uncorroborated testimony of P.W. No. 21 does not clinchingly prove that accused persons are responsible for the injury sustained by the deceased. In the F.I.R., though it was stated that Saroj Kumar Swain (P.W. No. 3) sustained a fracture injury, no document has been produced in Court in proof of such injury on his body. There is no clinching evidence to prove the discovery of weapons of offence u/s 27 of the Evidence Act or seizure of the same from the house of the accused persons. The report of the scientific officer is no way helpful for the prosecution to prove the accusation against accused-persons. For all such reasons, we find that the order of acquittal is not to be interfered with.
Accordingly, the Government Appeal and the Criminal Revision stand dismissed.