TIRTHA RANA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein this appeal call in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.1991 passed against them in Sessions Case No. 66/17 of 1990 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh vide impugned judgment and order held each of the appellants guilty of the charges under Sections 147/148/307/323/325 of Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one month under Sec. of 147 IPC, R.I. for one month under Sec. 148 of Penal Code and R.I. for one year under Sec. 307 of Penal Code with the order the sentences imposed shall run concurrently, but no separate sentence was awarded to the appellants for their conviction under Sections 323/325 of IPC. During the course of the appeal, the appellant no.1 namely, Tirtha Rana having died, the case against him stands abated.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 2.8.1989 early in the morning, the appellants forming an unlawful assembly, being armed with Thenga, Tangia and other deadly weapons said to have assaulted one of the member of informant party, namely, Krushna Rana (P.W.4) who was in the embankment of the village tank namely Jugen Bandha. Getting the news of the same when his relatives namely, Jujesti @ Judhistir Rana, Budu Rana, Duta Rana, Dhuble Rana and Muljit Rana arrived there, they were also assaulted by the present appellants. The matter was reported to the police at Titlagarh Police Station vide P.S. Case No. 82 of 1989. The police on investigation found substance in the information and charge sheeted the appellants for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) Taking into consideration the aforesaid case which was supported by the materials on record collected during investigation, the trial court framed the charges against the appellants for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147/148/307/323/325 of IPC. As the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge, they faced their trial. The prosecution, examined as many as seventeen witnesses and also exhibited certain documents and material objects in order to bring home the charge against the appellants. In their defence, the appellants, who had taken the plea of false implication and specifically pleaded the informant party to have assaulted them due to previous animosity with regard to possession of the Kumbharmunda Bhaga land, when they were in the said land for cultivation for which the counter case vide Titilagarh P.S. Case No. 81 of 1989 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 35/10 of 1990 pending against them, did not examine independent witness, but exhibited certain documents. However, on conclusion of trial placing reliance on the evidence available on record, the trial court returned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated earlier.