BHIMA PADHAN Vs. PARAMANANDA SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgement of acquittal in a sessions trial by which the learned Sessions Judge of Bolangir -Kalahandi acquitted the opposite party of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The informant is the petitioner. In spite of notice the opposite party has not entered appearance.

(2.) THERE were some litigations pending between Harischandra Pradhan (deceased) and the opposite party over unauthorised cultivation of Gochar lands by the opposite party. The deceased and the opposite party belonged to two different but neighbouring villages. The opposite party is a washerman by profession. On 26 -8 -68, the opposite party had come to the village of the deceased to the house of one Danara Biswal. At that time P.W. 7 Barbu, a nephew of the deceased, was returning from his field. Near the house of Danara, P.W. 7 and the accused met each other. The accused accosted by questioning P.W. 7 as to why he had impounded the cattle of his (the opp. party). There was some altercation going on when the deceased, uncle of P.W. 7, and the mother of the deceased (PW. 8) came to the spot and intervened. The accused threw down the bundle of paddy and with an axe gave a blow on the head of the deceased. He fell down and succumbed to the injury soon thereafter. From medical evidence it transpired that his parietal and occipital bones of the skull were fractured and the brain got ruptured and lacerated. The accused ran away to his village. The petitioner gave information at the nearby outpost. P.W. 12 the A. S. I. of police who was in charge of the outpost rushed to the spot and found Harischandra the victim to have already died. In due course the accused was charge -sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused was arrested on same day. An injury on his head found and upon his report a case registered against P.W. 7 and another. But during investigation no evidence to support the allegation was found and, therefore, that matter ended in a final report. No protest was raised and the matter ultimately got finality. 13 witnesses in all were examined for the prosecution including 4 eye -witnesses. P.W. 7 the nephew of the deceased. P.W. 8 the mother of the deceased, and P.Ws. 9 and 10 two outsiders figured as eye -witnesses to the occurrence. Besides these four, the informant P.W. 1 who is the elder brother of the deceased, P.W. 2 the Doctor who held the postmortem examination. P.W. 3 the Revenue Inspector who prepared the spot map. P.W. 4 the Sarpanch who came to prove the earlier litigation between the parties. P.Ws. 5 and 6 who were seizure witnesses. P.W. 11 who was a witness to the inquest and P.Ws. 12 and 13 who were the Investigating Officers were examined by the prosecution.

(3.) IT is contended that the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge is vitiated in law. The Court has also failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record. It has drawn inferences which were not at all warranted and it has proceeded on wrong premises both of fact and law and has landed itself in utter confusion.