STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RAJKISHORE ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents who stood trial Under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 302/34, 302/149 and 323/149, I. P. C. having been acquitted of the charges, this appeal has been preferred by the State. The prosecution case against the respondents was that on 22 -9 -1984 at about 9 a. m. white the deceased, one Kulamani Paital, was going on the village road he was physically lifted by the respondents 1i, 3, 4 and 6 and taken to the front of the house of the respondent Promod where he was assaulted with various weapons such as Thengas, Tentas, spade and crowbar etc. causing injuries all over his body. The respondent No. 1 Rajkishore poured something on the face of the deceased which resulted in burning injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by P. W. 2, his son who had come to the village. He ran back to inform P. W 1, the brother of the deceased and P. W. 5, the mother of the deceased who came to the spot along with P. W. 2, and the wife of the deceased Jhali Dei as also his daughter though they have not been examined as witnesses. When P. Ws. 1 and 5 intervened they were also assaulted by the respondents. The deceased who was rolling on the ground with agonising pain was carried to the embankment of the river luna by the respondents while he was unconscious and was left there. P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 along with some other members of the family came there and administered him some water. The deceased regained his sense and was taken to Marsaghai P. H. C. where the Doctor examined and advised him to be removed to the S. C. B. Medical College and Hospital, but while arrangements were being made for the purpose, he succumbed to the injuries The motive for the crime was given out as that of the deceased having been the cause of death of one Antaryami Rout, the paternal uncle of the respondent No 3 and he having been acquitted Under Section 302, I. P. C. in the trial that ensued on account of that death.

(2.) THE defence plea was one of denial with the further stand that the respondents and their relations were witnesses against the deceased in the earlier murder case and for Such reason they had been falsely involved in the case. The prosecution case was sought to be established on the eye -witnesses evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9.

(3.) SINCE on such fact the learned Sessions judge disbelieved the prosecution case and we after having been taken through the evidence do not find any justifiable reasons to depart from the conclusions reached by him there does not appear to be any cogent reason to interfere with the verdict, it is not pecessary for us to refer in detail to the evidence except as we have indicated above since We agree with the analysis of the evidence as was made by the learned Sessions Judge, the authority for which approach is available in AIR 1981 SC, 1417 (State of Karnataka ] Hemareddy and another). In view of that this appeal has no merit and is dismissed.