PRAVAKAR GOCHHAYAT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') faced trial under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in G. R. Case No. 2286 of 1990, Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar, on consideration of the evidence adduced while convicting the accused persons of the offence under Section 323/34, IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/ -, in default to suffer further period of rigorous imprisonment for one month, acquitted them of the offence under Section 34, IPC. On appeal being preferred against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the learned additional Sessions Judge on a re -appraisal of the evidence concurred with the findings of the trial Court, but so far as sentence is concerned, he reduced the period of rigorous imprisonment from three months to one month. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments of both the. Courts below the accused persons have come up to this Court by filing the present revision.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the prosecution case was that on 31 -7 -1990 at about 1.30 p. m. white Manguli Swain, PW 2 was going to river for bath, ail the accused persons intercepted and assaulted him near the school with lathis and fist blows. He raised hue and cry hearing which some students of the school came to the spot where after the accused persons leaving him there fled away. PW 2 was then removed to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where he was admitted as indoor patient. Written report of the incident was lodged by PW 2's son at Bhubaneswar Police Station whereupon a case Under section 341 and 307/34, IPC was registered and after usual investigation Charge -sheet was laid against the accused persons to stand their trial Under section 341 and 323/34, IPC.

(3.) FIVE witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Of them PW 2 is the injured and PW 3 is his grand -son. Doctor, PW 4 who examined PW 2 found 10 to 18 number of bruises all over his body, scratch injury with bleeding on the lateral aspect of the forearm, lacerated injury on the right elbow and suspected compound fracture of right humerus. There was X -ray examination of the humerus which did not indicate any bony injury. So PW 4 opined that all the above injuries were simple in nature and the same could be possible by blows with lathis and iron rod. His evidence regarding presence of aforesaid injuries on the person of PW 2 remained unassiled during cross -examination by the defence. In this view of the matter, the only question before the trial Court was whether it was the accused persons who assaulted PW 2 and caused injuries.