PARESWAR MAJHI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein call in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them in Sessions Case No.9/8 of 1991 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh. The learned trial court vide the impugned judgment and order held the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons") guilty of the charge under Sections 294, 332, 452, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the I.P.C.") and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month more under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., R.I. for one year under Section 332 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month more under Section 452 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

(2.) Prosecution placed a case before the trial court that the informant, namely, Durjodhan Sabar (P.W.3) while working as Forest Guard of Budibahal Forest Beat, booked the accused persons, namely, Pareswar Majhi, Khanjhi Majhi and Puda Majhi in a case under a forest offence as they were smuggling of teak logs unauthorisedly from Raju Reserve Forest. For that, the accused - Pareswar Majhi bore grudge against him. On 02.01.1991 at about 8 p.m., the accused - Pareswar Majhi along with other three accused persons assembled before the house where the informant (P.W.3) was residing with his wife and children and directed him to come out. When the informant did not come out from the house, the accused persons surged into his house and physically carried him to the village road in front of his house and brutally assaulted him by means of lathi. To save himself, the injured-informant (P.W.3) (hereinafter referred to as "P.W.3") ran away from the spot to the nearby threshing floor of one Somanath Meher where he hide himself under a straw heap. Thereafter, the accused persons left the spot and the P.W.3 came back to his house and immediately disclosed the incident before Somanath Meher, Bhaja Meher and before one Rana. The matter was also intimated to the Forester of Tureikela where after the Forester of Tureikela and Tureikela police arrived at the house of the P.W.3 who reported the matter orally. The police immediately reduced the oral information into writing, read over and explained its contents to P.W.3. Pursuant to the same, the Tureikela P.S. Case No.1 of 1991 was registered and investigation was taken up. In course of investigation, the police collected incriminating materials indicating the complicity of the accused persons with the aforesaid offences. After taking cognizance, the learned J.M.F.C., Kantabanjhi committed the case to the Court of Session. The trial court framed charge against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences on the basis of the materials placed on record. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution, as such, examined seven witnesses and also exhibited documents and Material Objects in support of charge. In their defence the accused persons did not choose to adduce any evidence. The trial court placing absolute reliance on the evidence returned the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated earlier.

(3.) Mr. A. Tripathy, the learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the accused persons submits that since in this case there is gross discrepancy in the version of the P.W.3, his wife (P.W.4) and socalled material witnesses, and when some material witnesses were withheld, the trial court has erred in placing reliance on such tainted version. Alternatively, it is also submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that even if it is accepted for a moment that the prosecution case is true, but still the factual matrix is not sufficient and adequate to fasten the accused persons with the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Consequently, the learned Amicus Curiae would submit that no ingredient of the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is attracted.