SADASIVA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anjan Kumar Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Suman Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Opposite Party No. 1.

(2.) Being aggrieved with the Judgment dtd. 17/9/2008 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C, Baripada, District-Mayurbhanj in Sessions Trial Case No. 14/1 of 2008 arising out of G.R. Case No. 946/2007, acquitting the opposite party No. 2, accused of the case of the offences under Ss. 436/506 of the IPC, the petitioner who was the informant of the case, has filed this revision petition under Sec. 397, read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying, amongst others, to quash the said Judgment dtd. 17/9/2008 in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and to pass such other order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper.

(3.) The petitioner contended that the Trial Court wrongly interpreted the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, who were eye witnesses to the incident and that their evidences were not contradicted by the defence in any manner. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the evidence of PW.3 to PW.6 were not properly dealt with, stating that they were the post occurrence witnesses and that they were consistent in their version that the accused was the author of the crime. The petitioner further submitted that there was a tussle between his son and the accused on the night of the incident at 10:30 p.m. that was witnessed by PW.2 and that the house of the petitioner was burnt after two hours of the said incident and therefore, petitioner contended that it can be well presumed that it is the accused opposite party No. 2 who was the author of the crime, where the said presumption was not rebutted by the accused by adducing sufficient evidence. According to the petitioner as the impugned judgment suffers from infirmity, he prayed to quash the impugned judgment, submitting further that the accused should have been punished being the author of the crime.