STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BHIKARI MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Government Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 1987, acquitting all the respondents of the charges under Sections 323/324/34 IPC and also acquitting respondent No.3 of the charge under Section 326 IPC by setting the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in S.T. Case No.92D/84 of 1986.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in short, is that on 22.06.1986 at about 8.00 A.M., Natha Mohanty (P.W.3) was ploughing his land situated at Badajoda Nala of Chhadasingh village with the help of his field servant Nilamani Singh (P.W.8) to sow paddy thereon. At that time P.W.3 found that accused -respondent Bhikari Mohanty had cut and removed the intervening ridge standing in between his land and the land of the said accused. When P.W.3 asked Bhikari as to why he had done so, there ensued a quarrel between them. In course of such quarrel, accused Akhaya Mohanty, who was holding a Tangia, gave a blow with the same to P.W.3, which struck his nose causing bleeding injury. Accused persons Iswar Mohanty and Sikhar Mohanty gave Lathi blows to his mouth, for which there was bleeding from his mouth and ear. At that time, when Gurubari (P.W.2) came running to the spot and protested, accused Akhaya gave a Tangia blow to the said witness, who warded off by raising both his hands and the blow fell on the back of Iswar Mohanty. Then accused Iswar Mohanty, Bhikari Mohanty and Sikhar Mohanty gave Lathi blows to P.W.2. Accused Akhaya also gave two Tangia blows causing bleeding injury. When Lachhaman @ Laxman Mohanty (P.W.4) protested, accused -respondents Iswar, Bhikari and Sikhar assaulted him with Lathis whereas accused Akhaya gave a Tangia blow to him, which hit near his left ear. Thereafter, when Aabhimanyu Mohanty (P.W.1) came and tried to protest, accused Akhaya gave a Tangia blow to his head causing bleeding injury. The injured persons came to Dhenkanal Sadar P.S. where P.W.1 lodged the F.I.R. Police took up investigation and on its completion submitted charge -sheet.

(3.) MR . Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that there are ample materials against the accused -respondents for recording an order of conviction against them. He also submits that all the witnesses are reliable and trustworthy. His further contention is that though the accused -respondents had sustained some minor and superficial injuries, non -explanation of the same shall not affect the prosecution case. He, however, fairly admitted that it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to explain the same.