STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SURENDRA PRASAD BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD further argument, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows.

(2.) GOVERNMENT , after obtaining the leave, challenges the order of acquittal granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in favour of the respondents as per the impugned judgment in Sessions Trial No.5/30 of 1990. According to the case of the prosecution, the occurrence of harvesting of paddy from the disputed land by Pitambar Barik (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased) and his injured son Narayan Barik (P.W.10) and their labourers brought the accused to the spot of occurrence as a matter of protest and they became the aggressors and dealt blows causing death of the deceased at the spot and injury on the person of P.W.10. On the aforesaid allegation, charge was framed against the six accused persons for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149 and 325/149, I.P.C. To substantiate the charge prosecution relied on oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 15 and documents marked Exts.1 to 26 and the Material Objects such as the wearing apparels of the deceased. In support of their plea of innocence accused persons examined two witnesses and relied on series of documents marked Exts. A to Q. They are all documents relating to the right over the disputed property. Amongst the fifteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the Post -mortem Report, Ext.12. P.W.13 is the doctor who examined P.W.10 and granted the Injury Certificate, Ext.13. P.W.14 is the other doctor who treated P.W.10 at Sub -division Hospital, Bhadrak.

(3.) ACCORDING to the F.I.R., accused persons forming an unlawful assembly when approached the place of harvest of paddy, the deceased and his son together with a group of labourers employed by them started running away from the spot. However, on the way the deceased was intercepted and accused Surendra Bhoi dealt a lathi blow to the chest of the deceased. Sustaining that blow the deceased fell down followed by a blow by 'Balama dealt by accused Bayani Bhoi. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, as noted by the trial Court, P.Ws.1, 11 and 12 are the eye -witnesses to the occurrence whereas P.W. -10 being an injured is also an eye witness to the occurrence. In their evidence the said witnesses have stated about lathi blow being dealt by Surendra Bhoi without mentioning the part of the body which was injured thereby and accused Bayani Bhoi dealing blow by a 'Balama to the head of the deceased. They have not stated about any other blow inflicted by any other accused persons or to any part of the body of the deceased. The trial Court, on assessment of evidence on record, entertained doubt on credibility of the eye witnesses so also took exception to the belated examination of P.Ws.11 and 12 by the Investigating Officer and in the result granted benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons and accordingly acquitted them.