RADHU @ RADHUA BHUTIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this jail criminal appeal has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.08.2004 in C.T. Sessions No. 13/137 of 2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kamakshyanagar, wherein he having faced trial for offence under Sections 341/324/307, IPC has been convicted for the offence under Sections 324/326, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years and 3 years respectively; running concurrently.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that on 14.11.2003 during noon hours, Keshab Ch. Sahu (P.W.2) had been to the shop of one Sunil Sahu (P.W.3) of his village. During then hearing some shout near the village road informant Manorama Sahu (P.W.1) who is the sister of P.W.2 came out of his house and found that P.W.2 coming with bleeding injury when villagers were following. He being asked, immediately disclosed implicating the appellant to have dealt bhujali blows in causing said injuries on his person. The injured (P.W.2) was then taken for treatment. It is further stated that when P.W.2 was sitting at the shop of P.W.3, the accused came from behind and assaulted him by means of bhujali. So information being lodged at Police Station, necessary case was registered and finally on completion of investigation, the appellant faced trial for the above offences and has been convicted and sentenced as above. During trial, the appellant banked upon the plea of false implication. Prosecution examined in total 11 witnesses while proving the F.I.R. Ext.1, injury report Ext.4 besides other documents such as seizure list.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses properly and there is no thread bare analysis and in a cavalier fashion has gone to render the finding of guilt against the appellant for offence under Sections 324/326 IPC. According to him, the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence and there has been failure on the part of the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Thus he urges that the judgment of conviction and sentence is to be set at naught. Learned Additional Government Advocate refuting the submission supports the finding of guilt rendered by the court below and it is his submission that the witnesses have gone to depose in a very natural manner and there appears no such discrepancy nor there remains any infirmity in such evidence so as to say that the evidence fall short of the test of trustworthiness. According to him no such reason also surfaces as to why the appellant would be chosen to be falsely implicated in this case and arrayed in the trial. It is also his submission that oral evidence of injured witness P.W.2 gets ample corroboration from medical evidence and evidence of other witnesses and therefore there remains absolutely no ground to unsettle the said finding of the guilt.