ATISH BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgement of conviction of three appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') who faced trial for allegedly having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "PC") on the accusation that they attempted to take away the life of informant who was the then Principal of Bhadrak College. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak found that the accused persons were guilty of offence. punishable under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for three months, but extended the benefit of Prohibition of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short, the 'Probation Act') placing them under the probation of District Probation Officer for a period of two years on furnishing bonds of Rs. 2000/- each to keep peace and be of good behavior.

(2.) Prosecution version is unfolded during trial shows the sad state society is passing through, At this juncture it is to be noted that each of the accused persons at the relevant point of time claimed to be a student, but their activities described by the prosecution are not expectable from a student.On 17-5-1986 around 11 a.m. the informant was returning to his Government residence by a scooter. Suddenly the accused persons obstructed him and he slowed down the speed of scooter, accused Atish dealt several blows by means of a Bahunga, while accused Pravakar and Paresh dealt blunt fist blows on his face. As a result of the assaults, the informant fell down on the road raising hue and cry. This attracted notice of several other persons nearby. The informant was immediately given medical treatment. First information report was lodged by him and investigation was undertaken, and on completion thereof charge-sheet was submitted.

(3.) In order to establish its accusations against the accused persons, prosecution examined ten Witnesses. Apart from the informant who was examined as PW 1, PWs 2, 4 and 5 were stated to be eye-witnesses. But during trial the said PWs. 2, 4 and 5 resiled from their statements made during investigation, and pleaded complete ignorance of the alleged occurrence, and took a somewhat interesting stand. They stated that because of students union activities under political pressure the informant bore grudge against this and that is how they have been falsely implicated.