SANAT ALIAS CHAKU JENA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this Criminal Appeal has been listed for orders on the bail application, learned Counsel for the appellants consents for hearing and disposal of the Criminal Appeal, which is of the year 1988. Accordingly the appeal is heard, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows.

(2.) BOTH the appellants have been convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 1987. Accused -appellant Pahali Prahallad Jena has been convicted for the offence under Section 304, Second Part of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and accused -appellant Sanat @ Chaku Jena has been convicted for the offence under Section 304/34, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. In addition to that, this appellant has also been convicted for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants argues that discrepancy in the evidence of the injured (P.W.1) and the eye -witnesses (P.Ws. 2 and 3) was not taken into consideration and though further eyewitnesses were present, they were not examined by the prosecution and, therefore, that benefit should go in favour of the accused persons. It has been noted by the trial Court and also on perusal of the evidence on record it is seen that there is no material contradiction in the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses. Their evidence on occurrence has remained unshaken to prove participation of both the appellants in both the occurrence and therefore no advantage is available to the appellants on the aforesaid ground.