BASUDEVA SATAPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH appellants were charged underSections 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code for having voluntarilycaused hurt to an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela, a Government Company. Bereft of unnecessary details,the short facts of the case as revealed from the FIR are that on23rd of November, 1984, P.W.6 along with P.Ws. 1 and 14 whowere employed as Land Guards of the Land Office of SAIL wentto Sector 18 Jhumpudi Market to prevent the accused appellantsfrom attempting to unauthorisedly occupy a piece of land whichwas acquired by the State Government and allotted in favour ofSAIL. The Land Guards when tried to demolish and remove theencroachments, it is alleged, the appellants got enraged andassaulted them with lathis. It was also stated that the peopleof the locality also gathered there and they pelted stones, as aresult of which the personnel of SAIL wore injured. On the basisof the said FIR, G.R. Case No. 2321 of 1984 was registered whichwas subsequently converted as S.T. No. 39/11 of 1986. LearnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Rourkela who tried the case, by hisjudgment dated 24th of October, 1986 has convicted the appellantsunder Section 333, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorousimprisonment for three years. He further convicted the appellantsunder Section 332, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one year with direction that both the sentenceswould run concurrently. The said judgment is Impugned in thisappeal.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants andthe learned counsel for the State at length and perused thelower Court records and the documents.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the land in question was acquired byGovernment of Orissa under Ext.4, the gazette notification.The said land was transferred to Hindusthan Steel Limited,Rourkela under Ext.5. Both the documents reveal that the landwas transferred free from any encroachment. According to theprosecution, some local inhabitants forcibly tried to enter intothe said land allotted in favour of SAIL and raise unauthorisedconstructions thereon. Coming to know about such fact, onthe date of occurrence, officers/employees of SAIL were deputedto prevent such unauthorised construction. Ext.6 is a copy ofthe Office Order which reveals that the aforesaid duty hadbeen assigned to P.Ws. 1 and 6 on 23.11.1994. The evidence ofP.W. 1 clearly reveals that when the officials of SAIL tried toprevent the encroachment and used force to remove the unauthorisedconstructions raised on the land of SAIL, the appellants assaultedP.W. 1. The said statement is corroborated by some other prosecutionwitnesses. It is a fact that some of the prosecution witnesses,i.e. P.Ws. 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9, were declared hostile as they didnot supports the prosecution case,