STATE OF ORISSA Vs. JASHOBANTA NARAYAN NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has called in question the order of acquittal dated 04.05.1996 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in ST. Case No. 25/126 of 1995 acquitting the respondents of the charges under sections 341/323/294/307/34, I.P.C. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.05.1995 around 5 P.M., the informant Raghubir Nanda was teaching his son in his house when his wife was also present there. It is stated that during that time, their maid servant, Kandi was in the courtyard of the house, when respondent No. 1 arrived holding a thenga and his mother respondent No. 2 also came with him holding another thenga. It is alleged that they assaulted the maid servant Kandi resulting her fall on the ground when she shouted for help. Hearing the cry, Raghubir went there and then it is stated that respondent No. 3 caught hold of him, whereafter respondent Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted him with thengas causing bleeding injuries on his person. It is further alleged that when Jashobanta's wife arrived and protested, respondent No. 1 abused her in filthy language and when was approaching her, she out of fear went inside the house and closed the door.

(2.) DURING the trial, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 is the informant injured, P.W.2 is his wife, P.Ws.3 and 6 are two co -villagers and witnesses to the seizure, P.W.5 is the doctor, who had examined the injured persons, namely, Raghubir -P.W.1 and Kandi, the maid servant of Raghubir (since not examined), P.W.4 is the investigating officer.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, supports the appreciation of evidence as made by the trial court. It is his contention that the trial court has rightly taken note of the fact that one injured, i.e., the maid servant of P.W.1 having not been examined and the prosecution has rightly been blamed for withholding such evidence. That, according to him, has got adverse impact on the case as that could have provided corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. So according to him, for her non -examination it has to be held that the prosecution if would have brought her to the witness box, the correct picture as regards the incident would have been unfolded and that is sought to be suppressed. It is also his submission that the trial court has rightly taken note of the material discrepancies appearing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 together with their exaggerated version in ultimately concluding that they are not wholly reliable. Therefore, he urges that the appeal appears no merit.