KUNLALA DEKHIT Vs. DEBENDRA SALPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against acquittal of the respondent by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Pun, heading appeal from judgment of his conviction passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pun convicting him offences under Sections 448, 354 and 323 I.P.C. and sentencing him to fine of Rs. 50/- on each count, in default to SI for five days on each count. The appellant came with the case that on 18.7.1980 at about 8 a.m. in the morning the respondent and herself had hot exchange of words in connection with mortgage of a gold necklace by her with respondent and during the occurrence the respondent entered her hours, dragged her out of the room making her half-naked and dealt her fist blows and a blow by means of a brick. She reported the matter at the police station but the police made her run there for some times and ultimately refused to take action and asked her to approach the Court for which the complaint was filed. The defence was denial of the occurrence. The appellant examined five witnesses in support of her case, but not witness was examined by the respondent. The respondent assailed his conviction is appeal where the learned appellate judge found the case of the appellant to have been substantially embellished than the station diary entry which was lodged at the first instance and her not to have examined the witnesses named in the station diary entry nor the medical examination report to have been produced for which he held the charges not to have been established. Accordingly he acquitted the respondent. In reaching the conclusion the learned Additional Sessions Judge book into account the facts that though in the station diary entry the appellant had mentioned that her brother-in-law was present at the time of occurrence and was assaulted and injured, yet in the complaint she stated that neither her husband nor her brother-in-law was present. In the complaint though she had alleged offence of house trespass, outraging of her modesty and voluntarily causing hurt to her, yet in the station diary entry lodged on the same day she had not revealed any allegation of house trespass or of outraging of her modesty. Ext. 1 is the station diary entry wherein she merely complained of the respondent having rebuked her in filthy language for which she abused him and because of that the respondent came and gave a brick blow to her left side head. She had been medically examined at Chandanpur P.H.C. The occurrence took place due to dispute over mortgage of some gold ornament. Though such was the fact, yet in her complaint petition she stated that the police had sent her to the hospital for medical examination. No medical certificate was called for from the police station or from the medical officer, and no explanation was also offered as to why steps were not taken to adduce evidence of such document Her brother-in-law who was present at the spot as per the station diary entry was not examined in the case. The station diary entry revealed Laxmidhar Das and Fakira Dwibedy and others to have seen the occurrence, but neither of them was examined as witness and instead completely new persons were examined as witnesses.

(2.) In view of such glaring discrepancies, it can hardly be said that there has been any gross infirmity in the appellate judgment in appreciation of the evidence. The appellant court having reached conclusive findings of fact there is no scope for interference in this appeal.

(3.) In the result, the appeals has not merit and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.