STATE Vs. BANAMBAR SAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in Sessions Trial Case No. 2/143 of 1985 of the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge -curt7 -Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that while sleeping in her bed room at about 1.30 A.M. in the night of 25.2.1985, Nirupama Samal (P.W.No. 1) was attacked by somebody and then she woke up and discovered that accused -respondent was cutting her throat by the knife (M.O. -I). She identified the accused and resisted him by holding the iron portion (blade portion) of the knife and in the struggle, the handle was separated from the iron portion of the knife. Then accused holding the handle of the knife ran away. P.W. No. 2 tried to catch hold the accused and in that process accused managed to escape but his lungi remained in the hands of P.W. No. 2. Then she reported the incident to her uncle -in -law, who was sleeping in another bedroom. She was brought to hospital at Puri and ultimately, to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. In the meantime, the Police Officer of Konark P.S. getting information about the incident appeared at Puri and registered the F.I.R. and after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the respondent for the offence under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. In the trial Court, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and one from the side of the accused. Besides that, all the incriminating articles and the documents seized together with the F.I.R. and the injuries certificates were tendered in evidence out of which M.O.I, is the knife and M.O.III is the lungi. - -

(3.) ON perusal of the entire evidence and the findings recorded by the trial Court, learned Addl. Government Advocate argues that the non -impeachable evidence of P.W. No. 2 proves the occurrence, which is supported by injury certificates and evidence of the doctors (P.Ws. 4 and 8). P.W. No. 2 suffered the injuries, which could not be self -inflicted and, therefore, when the matter stands thus, there is no scope to entertain doubt on merit of the prosecution case. Accordingly, he prays to set aside the order of acquittal.