KARTIK MAHAKUD Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 12/1/2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T. No.23 of 2003 (S.T. No.68/2003 of D.C.) arising out of G.R. Case No.271 of 2002 corresponding to Baunsuni P.S. Case No.35 of 2002 pending on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Boudh. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, these Appellants (accused persons) have been convicted for commission of the offence under Sec. 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Accordingly, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four (4) year and pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months each for commission of the said offence. It be stated here that with these Appellants, namely, Kartik Mahakud; Tankadhar Gurandi; Madhab Mahakud and Baisakhu Mahakud along with six others had faced the trial for commission of the offence under Sec. 148/307 read with Sec. 149 of the IPC. But, the Trial Court found those six accused persons not guilty of committing any of the offences and acquitted them of all the charges.

(2.) Prosecution Case:- In the night of 6/9/2002 around 9.00 p.m., at Village- Dambargard, these accused persons including those six accused persons (since acquitted) being armed with Medha, Tangia etc. formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, mercilessly assaulted one Gayadhar Naik (P.W.2), who happens to be the brother of the Informant Giridhar, who has been examined as P.W.1 and another, namely, Sridhar Gaigoria (P.W.6) on account of previous grudge. It is stated that accused Kartik severely assaulted on the hand of Gayadhar by means of Tangia as a result of which there was amputation above writ level. It is also stated that when the Informant (P.W.1) and other villagers appeared and intervened, all the accused persons left the place. An information to the above effect being given in writing to the Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.) of Police (P.W.7) attached to Baunsuni P.S., the criminal case was registered and the investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the Final Form placing these four accused persons and those six others (since acquitted) to face the trial.

(3.) The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence and their evaluation, has held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading clear, cogent and acceptable evidence against these four accused persons for having committed the offence under Sec. 326/34 of the IPC while holding that it has failed to prove its case against other six accused persons.