JUDHISTIR GOUDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Add 1. Sessions Judge. Jeypore whereby he had upheld the conviction of the accused-petitioner under sections 332 and 426 I.P.C. and the sentence passed There under.

(2.) In short, the prosecution case is that on 9.8.1983 at about 10.45 a.m. while Sri Krushna Mohan Acharya, Superintending Engineer. Balimcla Dam Circle (P.W. I) was discharging his official duty in his office chamber at Chitrakonda the petitioner who was the President of the Workers Union along with two others namely, Dhanapati Sarangi and P. Ganapati wanted to have discussion with him mainly regarding the playing of the school bus to the Dykes. Accordingly, they all sent a chit seeking permission through the orderly peon of the Superintending Engineer (P.W. 5) and after obtaining permission they went inside the chamber and requested the Superintending Engineer to direct playing of the school bus to the Dykes. The Superintending Engineer having replied that he had already v referred the matter to the Engineer-in-chief and after obtaining necessary instruction he would pass appropriate order. Not being satisfied with such reply, top accused-petitioner asked the Superintending Engineer as to why he had not yet passed order inspite of recommendation of the Executive Engineer and insisted on passing an order approving the plying of the bus and then gave a fist blow to the left side of his face resulting in the breaking his spectacle and bleeding injuries on his nose. Thereafter, the Superimending Engineer lodged the F.I.R. (Ext 1) at Chitrakooda P.S. at 12 noon. in course of investigation, the police seized the bloodstained shirt (M.O.I) and the broken spectacle (M.O.II), as per seizure list, Ex. 2 and the Superintending Engineer (P.W. 2) was medically examined. After completion of investigation Charge-sheet having been submitted the accused petitioner and his two above named associates faced trial under sections 448, 332, 426 all read with section 34 I.P.C.

(3.) The defence did not dispute that the accused-petitioner and his associates had gone into the office chamber of P.W. I but they specifically denied any assault on him. According to them, when they requested P.W. Ito allow the school bus to ply to the Dykes he abused them in filthy language and asked them to leave his room for which they had to return disappointed. So far as the injury on the person of P.W. I was concerned. They pleaded that while coming out of his office chamber in an angry mood his face dashed against the door leaves of the said room. It was also asserted that for the conduct of P.W. I the accused petitioner lodged a report at the P.S. and in order to escape from the case initiated on the basis of the report, this case was falsely filed against them. The accused-petitioner examined himself in support of the defence plea.