DHANESWAR PANDA Vs. BALARAM MAHALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the informant challenging the order dated 26.9.2005 passed by the learned Asst.Sessions Judge, Jajpur, in S.T. No.97 of 2002 acquitting the accused persons.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the accused persons faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 147/148/307/149, I.P.C. In consonance with an F.I.R. filed on 20.4.2000, G.R. Case No.361 of 2000 was registered in the Court of S.D.J.M., Jajpur. According to the prosecution on 20th April 2000 at about 7.00 A.M. the accused persons forming unlawful assembly and being armed with weapons attacked the informant and others when they were returning after attending call of nature. It is alleged that the informant and his friends sustained severe injuries on their person and the condition of one Dhaneswar Panda was very serious. The plea of defence was complete denial. It is further pleaded that the informant and the prosecution witnesses used criminal force against Kuntala Sahu, wife of the accused, and also outraged her modesty and when a case was filed by Kuntala against the informant and others, the present false case has been foisted as a counter blast. In support of their stand they examined certified copies of the formal F.I.R. filed by Kuntala, charge sheet and injury report in G.R. Case No.361/2000.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge after vivid discussion of the evidence both orally and documentary came to the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses have contradicted with each other and the evidence of the independent witnesses also do to corroborate other evidence. The trial Court also observed that there is inconsistency in the ocular evidence with that of medical evidence. It is further observed that the evidence do not implicate any of the accused. On the basis of such conclusion it was held that the prosecution has totally failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused persons were acquitted.