JOGINATH SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY ten accused persons were convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Banki in S.T. No.3 of 1994 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and it was directed that the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence was impugned by the convicts before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1995. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 6.9.1996 set aside the conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 3 to 10 and acquitted them of all the charges. He, however, set aside the conviction and sentence of present petitioner No.1 Joginath Sahoo under Section 307/34 IPC and convicted him under Section 323/34 IPC sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Sessions Judge while acquitting present petitioner No.2 Bidyadhar Sahoo of the offence under Section 323/34 IPC, maintained his conviction under Section 307/34 IPC and modified his sentence thereunder from rigorous imprisonment for three years to rigorous imprisonment for one year besides a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The present Criminal Revision challenges the said order of conviction and sentence of the petitioners.

(2.) THE criminal proceeding was set in motion on the filing of a complaint case by one Abhiram Sahoo on the allegation that though an FIR was filed by him before the local police station against the accused persons, for reasons best known to police, the FIR was substituted by police and lesser offences were mentioned in the substituted FIR for which the complainant was constrained to approach the S.D.J.M., Banki. The said complaint petition was registered as ICC No. 58 of 1992 which was subsequently converted into Sessions Trial No.3 of 1994 and was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Banki.

(3.) DURING trial, to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, of whom P.Ws 1 to 5 were alleged to be the eye -witnesses; P.Ws 7 and 8 were the alleged injured persons; P.W.6 was the Medical Officer of Kantapada P.H.C. who examined the injured persons immediately after the occurrence; P.W.9 was the doctor of Khurda Hospital who had examined injured Joginath sahoo; and P.W.10 was the Professor of Neuro Surgery of S.C.B. Medical College -Hospital, Cuttack who had examined injured Krushna Chandra Sahoo.