ROHITA MIRDHA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present revision, the petitioners question the correctness of judgment dtd. 13/10/2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 10/3 of 2004/05, whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and, in the process, the judgment dtd. 26/6/2004 passed by the learned Asst. Sessons Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 277/60 of 2002 was confirmed. As per the said judgment, the learned Asst. Sessions Judge convicted the accused petitioners under Ss. 323/325/34 of IPC and sentenced them each to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months each for the offence under Sec. 325 of IPC and to undergo R.I. for six months each under Sec. 323 IPC with both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 4/8/2001 while Pabitra Mirdha, the uncle of the informant Gopinath Mirdha, was returning home after attending the call of nature at about 9 a.m., the three accused persons assaulted him by means of axe and lathi on the village road of Khetinali causing severe bleeding injuries on his person. Upon hearing about the incident, the informant rushed to the spot and reported the matter at Charmal Police Station leading to registration of Charmal P.S. Case No. 47/2001 and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Ss. 307/323/325/34 of IPC. In course of trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses, while the defence examined one witness from its side. After scanning the evidence on record particularly, the evidence of the injured, Pabitra Mirdha (P.W.-4), as supported by other witnesses, such as, P.W.-6, P.W.-5, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 as also the evidence of the doctor, P.W.-10, the trial Court held that though the offence under Sec. 307 is not made out, yet the prosecution was successful in proving the charge under Ss. 323/325/34 of IPC. On such findings, the trial Court convicted the accused petitioners and sentenced them as aforesaid.

(3.) Heard Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Stae.