RABI SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision assails the order of conviction under S. 326, I.P.C. and sentence of R. I. for a period of two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo R. I. for one year more.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 22-1-1988 about 3 p.m. when P.W. 6, the injured was coming out of the Jay Jagannath Cinema Hall of Itamati after witnessing the noon-show picture he was stabbed by the petitioner with a knife, which caused injury on the chest and abdomen. He became unconscious and subsequently the matter was reported to the police by his father (P.W. 2). The matter after investigation chargesheet was submitted, and the petitioner was convicted as already stated above.

(3.) The petitioner denied prosecution case, as alleged. Though various contentions were raised by Mr. P. K. Misra the learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the legality and propriety of the order of conviction and sentence and confirmation thereof, yet on examination of the evidence of P.W.6 and his statement before the police recorded under S.61, Cr. P.C., I find material contradiction affecting the veracity of P.W. 6 when in the evidence P.W.6 stated that occurrence took place while he was coming out of the Cinema Hall after the show in the statement before the Police he stated that the occurrence took place at an open space near the garden situated towards eastern side of the Cinema Hall and also stated that the petitioner assaulted him with a knife on abdomen, back and the right side arm. The Court's below have not taken note of this contradiction, which was a material contradiction, and therefore, there has been total wrong appreciation of evidence on record, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Though Mr.Misra placed evidence on record and submitted about other infirmities, such as, absence of blood stains at the spot and the absence of corresponding tearing in the shirt and pant, I feel it unnecessary to go into the same since I am satisfied that there is suppression of material facts relating to the occurrence, because of the contradiction as indicated. The unusual manner of shifting the place of occurrence leads me to believe some thing else and P.W. 6 has twisted the story in the Court for reasons, which remains rather mysterious. Further, if, in fact the occurrence took place while P.W.6 and petitioner were coming out of the Cinema Hall, non-examination of independent witness also cast a doubt in the prosecution ease.