STATE OF ORISSA Vs. YASIN BAIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents stood charged under S.148 of the Penal Code (for short, 'the Code') for having formed an unlawful assembly on April. 24, 1981, being armed with sticks, which used as weapons of offences were likely to cause death, in prosecution of their common object to assault Ujir (P.W. 6) and others. They also stood charged under S.120-B read with S.149 of the Code for having agreed to do an illegal act and under S.307 read with S.149 of the Code for having attempted to commit the murder of Kabir (P.W. 2) and Ujir (P.W. 6) and assaulted them. P.W. 2 had sustained grievous injuries while P.W. 6 had sustained simple injuries. The prosecution had examined thirteen witnesses to bring home the charges to the respondents. P.W. 1 was the first informant. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 had sustained injuries allegedly at the hands of the respondents. P.Ws. 8 to 10 had been examined as witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 3 to 5 were the doctors and P.Ws. 12 and 13 had investigated into the case. At the stage of trial itself, the prosecution had conceded that there could be no case under S.120-B nor one under S.307 read with S.149 of the Code. It had been urged that the respondents would be liable for causing grievous and simple hurt to P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court held that the charges framed against the respondents had not been established and they could not as well be convicted for causing grievous hurt or hurt in view of the highly unsatisfactory state of evidence. These findings are now under challenge.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. The prosecution case and the pleas of the respondents have been set out in body of the judgment of the trial court and need not again be reproduced. The questions before me purely relate to appreciation of the prosecution evidence. No ground has been made out to come to a conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are unreasonable or perverse calling for interference in an appeal against acquittal. The trial Court has discussed the evidence with regard to the assault on P.W. 1 in paras. 9 and 10 of the judgment and for the reasons stated therein based on evidence, held that none of the respondents could be held liable for inflicting any injury on his person. The evidence with regard to the alleged assault on the person of P.W. 2 has been discussed by the trial court in para. 8 of the judgment. The trial court has concluded that it could not be said from the evidence that the injury Nos. 1 and 2 described in Ext. 4 (injury report) had been the result of stick blows given by any of the respondents. None of the respondents could be held liable for the injuries sustained by P.W. 2, as found by the trial court after a discussion of the evidence in that regard. As regards the injuries sustained by P.W. 6, the trial court has discussed the evidence in paras 11 to 13 of the judgment. Noticing the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses to the occurrence, the trial court has ultimately found that none of the respondents were responsible for the injuries sustained by P.W. 6 as mentioned in Ext. 5 (injury report). In view of the circumstances appearing in the evidence, the trial court has concluded that the respondents could not be said to have been actuated by any common object.

(3.) It is not a case where any of the findings has been based on inadmissible evidence nor can it be said that the trial court has left out admissible evidence in coming to its conclusions. In an appeal against acquittal, even if a conclusion is reached that another view could be taken on the evidence on record, that cannot be a ground for interference.