RINAKAR NAYAK Vs. AKSHAYA KUMAR MAHAKUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision at the instance of the informant against the judgment of acquittal in a casein which the opp party No. 1 stood trial under Secs. 325/307, IPC The petitioner is the father -in -law of the opp: party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the opp. party. The facts briefly narrated are that the opp, party's wife after having led married life for eight years and giving birth to a female child had gone away to the house of her parents and was staying there. The opp. party had also gone there and was staying in the house of his father -in -law. On the date of occurrence, the opp. party asked his wife PW 1 to accompany him to their village. The later having refused, the opp. party got enraged and saying that he Would kill his brother -in -law, PW 11, rushed inside the room where he was sleeping and struck his head with a crowbar causing injuries on the head and thereafter came away running to the cowshed and created panic by revolving a crowbar and went on dashing his head against wooden pillars and jumping frequently, dashing his head against the horizontal pole supporting the overhead shelf of the cowshed. The pole crashed down and some long bamboo pieces on the shelf fell upon him causing him injuries and rendering him unconscious Thereafter the witnesses and others caught hold of the Opp. party and tied him with a rope. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge considering the evidence though found the occurrence as narrated against the opp. party to have been proved and the nature of the injuries caused to PW 11 being such that the same could have caused his death, yet acquitted the opp. party since the multiple injuries on him had not been explained either in the FIR or before the investigating officer and holding that reliance could not be placed on the explanation for the injuries on the accused offered for the first time in Court.

(2.) IT is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the acquittal of the opp, party was based on the aforesaid sole ground, the judgment is vitiated as on the one hand it was not for, the prosecution to explain the injuries on the opp. party which were simple in nature, and that as a matter of fact the injuries were explained by the witnesses.

(3.) IN the result, the revision has no merit and is dismissed.