CHITTARANJAN RAM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners being undeterred by the orders of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below have filed this revisional application.

(2.) Prosecution case in short is as follows: On 8-6-1988 at about 11.00 a.m. while the informant Basanti Singh was constructing the kitchen in her courtyard the petitioners forming an unholy gang trespassed into her courtyard, abused her in slang language followed by uprooting the fence. When the informant protested the high-handed action of the petitioners, the petitioner Jugal Kishore Ram had assaulted her by a twig as a reason whereof she sustained bleeding injury on her hands. At that juncture her nephew Sarat Kumar Singh raised hue and cry and he too was assaulted by Jugal Kishore Ram. Petitioners Satya Ranjan Ram and Chittaranjan Ram uprooted the fence of about 50 cubits length which was valued at Rs. 100/-. The matter was reported at the police station whereupon a case against the petitioenrs was registered under Ss. 341, 323, 294 and 427/34, IPC. The investigation was carried on and after completion of the same, charge-sheet was placed against the petitioners. Prosecution, in order to sustain conviction against the petitioners had examined 7 witnesses. On the contrary the defence examined one witness. The learned J.M.F.C. Bhadrak acquitted the accused persons under Ss. 341, 294 and 427, IPC but convicted them only under S. 323/34, IPC, and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default to undergo S.I. for one month each. Being aggrieved and affected by the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore which was eventually disposed of by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Criminal Appeal No. 25/93. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge while affirming the order of conviction reduced the sentence by imposing a fine of Rs. 200.00 each in default to undergo S.I. for 7 days. Being aggrieved by such sentence the petitioners have filed this case.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioenrs has contended with strong intensity of conviction that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under S. 323, IPC against the petitioners. Learned trial Court as well as appellate Court have superficially examined the evidence and recorded an order of conviction. It has been further contended that there was substantial delay in despatch of the FIR by the police to the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak. It is, therefore, to be held that the prosecution has not properly proved the case against the accused persons and the accused-petitioners should at least be given benefit of doubt.