SANJEEV MARIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482, Code Criminal procedure Challenging the notice under Section 386(e) of the Cr. P.C.

(2.) The short facts of the case is that the petitioner on the date of occurrence i.e. on 31.5.1985 was working as the Sub-Divisional Police Officer at Khurda. He along with other Officers had gone on official duty and while coming back in the jeep they had to stop as an auto rickshaw was parked on the road and three persons were standing near the auto rickshaw. Since it was late night, the A.S.I. of Police got down and enquired Regarding the cause and seized the auto rickshaw. Suddenly one Dusmanta Das challenged the A.S.I. and brought one spring knife and raised the same to attack him. Dusmata was heavily drunk. The Circle Inspector of Police and the petitioner immediately got down from the jeep and came to the rescue of the A.S.I. The Circle Inspector gave a blow by means of his small lathi as a result of which the knife had broken and fell down on the ground and Dusmanta also fell down on the ground since he was heavily drunk. The other two associates and the auto driver ran away from the spot. The auto had no number plate, however Dusmanta was apprehended and brought to the police station in a drunken state. He a also sustained minor injuries due to the fall. An F.I.R. was lodged and he was sent for medical examination and ultimately charge sheet was filed against Dusmanta under Section 307, I.P.C.

(3.) Accused Dusmanta Das was tried for having committed an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. in S.T. No. 38/181 of 1992. He was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. It is stated that the prosecution had examined eight witnesses. P.W. 1 was the Circle Inspector of police, P.W. 2 was the doctor who examined Dusmanta on the same night and opined that he was drunk and had two injuries, possibly by fall and the other injury was opined to be due to coming contact with rough substance. P.W. 5 was an eye witness, P.W. 6 was the petitioner and P.W. 7 was the A.S.I. who was the informant in the case. The matter was carried in appeal and the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and acquitted the accused from the charges.