STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BABAN JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Government Appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal of one of the thirteen accused persons, who jointly faced trial before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial Case No. 10/134 of 1988/87.

(2.) HEARD Learned Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the impugned Judgment. It reveals there from that on a trivial matter a quarrel ensued between the wife of the informant and the accused persons. The informant is P.W.1 and his wife is P.W.3. In an unwanted move, when the accused persons challenged P. Ws. 1 and 3 at 10 a.m. of 27.7.1984, Indramani the deceased intervened and cautioned the accused persons not to misbehave the lady or to face the consequence thereof. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons reprimanded the intervention of the deceased and mercilessly assaulted him. After sustaining injuries when the deceased fell down, as alleged by the prosecution, the accused -Respondent stated that survival of Indramani would be dangerous to them and so saying he dealt a stab blow on the vertex of the deceased by means of a bhali (a sharp pointed weapon). On examination of the oral and documentary evidence of the doctor (P.W.8) and the oral evidence of the eye witnesses, Trial Court recorded finding that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused persons. Thus, it acquitted them of various charges under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 323/325 Indian Penal Code, 324 Indian Penal Code. The present Respondent, who was charged under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, was also acquitted on the selfsame ground. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken note of the discrepancies in the prosecution evidence to grant the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons.

(3.) ON reference to the evidence of P.W.8, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, it is seen that he has stated that injury No. 1 was one incised looking lacerated wound 2"x1/2"x1/4" on the vault of the scalp." He further stated that injury No. iii was " comminuted fracture on the frontal and parietal extending 2 1/2" from the left frontal bone up to the parietal bone covering both the tables of the skull. The entire skull bone was fractured." Injury No. iv was "one globular swelling on both sides of mastoyed region. On cut Section there was haematoma under the skin (accumulation of blood). This is probable due to prickling of the blood from the injuries of the scalp." P.W.8 further stated that "injury No. i might have been caused by some blunt substance i.e. the weapon is neither completely sharp nor completely blunt. The fracture on the skull might have been caused by forcible impact instrument over vault."