STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SUBALA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, I find no prima facie case for interference in this appeal against acquittal and I would briefly state the reasons.

(2.) The respondents figuring as the accused persons stood charged under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code) for having formed an unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapons in prosecution of their common object to commit the murder of Manguli Sethi (P.W. 7) of the complainants party and assaulting others on September 27, 1980, at Sadanandapur in the district of Pun. They also stood charged under sections 307, 326 and 324 read with section 149 of the Code for attempting to commit the murder of P.W. 7, voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Iswar Behera (P.W. 2) and voluntarily causing hurt to Laxmidhar Behera (P.W. 4) and Udayanath Behera (P.W. 6) in furtherance of their common object on the same day and at the same place. A separate charge had also been framed against them under section 307 read with section 34 of the Code. Besides, the respondents Dunga Behera and Bhikari Behera stood separately charged under section 326 of the Code for voluntarily causing hurt to P.Ws. 2 and 5. The respondent Bhikari Behera stood charged under section 324 of the Code for voluntarily causing hurt to P.W. 4 and the respondent Raghunath Behera stood charged under section 324 of the Code for voluntarily causing hurt to P.W. 6. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and taking into consideration the pleas of the defence and the fact that the injuries on the three persons from the side of the accused had not been explained, the trial court had recorded an order of acquittal. The case of the prosecution in detail and the pleas raised by the respondents have been set out in the body of the judgment. The appellate court, while affirming the judgment, need not state in detail the facts and need not reiterate the same reasons given by the trial court in support of its judgment.

(3.) As has been held by the trial court, evidence had been led against the respondents mainly by examining highly partisan and interested witnesses. The evidence showed that there had been very strained relationship between the complainantTs party on the one hand and the respondents on the other. Apart from the fact that the evidence of the witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution had bristled with discrepancies, the trial court found that it had not been supported by independent evidence. Three persons from the side of the accused had sustained injuries which, as found by the trial court, had been caused during the occurrence. Some of the injuries must have been caused by sharp cutting instruments and were not superficial ones, as noticed by the trial court. Instead of explaining the injuries on those persons, the witnesses examined for the prosecution pleaded their ignorance about such injuries. In the circumstances of the case, the fact that no explanation had been offered as to how and under what circumstances three persons from the side of the accused sustained injuries would certainly affect the bonafides of the prosecution case presented at the trial. The trial court had rightly concluded that a true and complete picture about the occurrence had not been presented by the prosecution.