STATE Vs. BIMBADHAR KHUNTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by causing delay of more than 2 1/2 years along with an application for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. At the time of hearing of the application for condonation of delay, we thought it proper to hear the matter on merits. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) MR . Mohapatra, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the State has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khurda in a case under Section 302. I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(3.) IN order to sustain conviction against the accused. 12 witnesses have been examined of which the evidence of P.W.3 gains importance, as she has claimed to be the eye witness to the occurrence. The trial Court has closely examined her evidence and found her testimony not worthy of credence. P.W.3 is the informant in this case. It is stated in the F.I.R. that while she was going towards the house of the accused, she found the accused the accused -respondent assaulting the deceased, as a result, the deceased after receiving severe injuries tell down on the ground. She raised hue and cry as a result. several persons reached the spot. But by the time others arrived at the spot, the accused -respondent disappeared from the scene of occurrence. Therefore, apart from the evidence of P.W.3. there has been no other ocular evidence to connect the accused -respondent with the crime. During her examination in Court, P.W.3 made a statement, which contradicted from the F.I.R. story and depicted completely a different version by stating that she was in the betel vine with the child of the deceased on her lap. Therefore. the trial Court felt rightly unsafe in placing implicit reliance on P.W. 3.