SUDARSAN @ AIBAN NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that Dwaru Rout (P.W.1) was the owner in possession of a piece of cultivable land locally known as Majhimunda, which was situated in village Ghodadian. In the year 1988, he had raised paddy crops thereon and on 14.11.1988 morning, while he was reaping the standing crops with his labourers namely, Keshaba Rout (P.W.2), Rajan Sahu (P.W.3) and Palau Naik (P.W.4), the appellants along with the co-accused Babu @ Baijendra Naik entered into the said land being armed with lathies and axe, challenged them and assaulted them. On account of such assault, Keshaba Rout (P.W.2) received serious injuries and was hospitalized and P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 also sustained some minor injuries On the basis of the first information report lodged by P.W.1 before officer in charge of Kisinda police station on 14.11.1988, Kisinda P.S. Case No.22 of 1988 was registered under sections 447/323/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W.10 Dhabaleswar Bibhar, who was the officer in charge of Kisinda police station, took up investigation of the case, visited the spot, examined the witnesses, sent the injured persons for medical examination, seized the lathies, arrested the accused persons and forwarded them to Court, made a query to the Medical Officer relating to the injuries sustained by P.W.2 Keshaba Rout and also recorded the dying declaration of Keshaba Rout (P.W.2) and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellants and co-accused Babu @ Baijendra Naik under sections 447, 323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 28.01.1989.

(3.) After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal procedure where the learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellants and the co-accused Babu @ Baijendra Naik for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on 20.09.1989. Since they refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute them and establish their guilt.