LAWS(ORI)-2007-8-70

GHANASHYSM PARIDA Vs. STATE

Decided On August 09, 2007
Ghanashysm Parida Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 53 of 1987 convicting the Appellant under Section 332 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for one year.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Appellant was working as a Junior Engineer, P.H.D., Keonjhar now working as Assistant Engineer, GPHD, Sambalpur. He was allotted one house of the Municipality as a tenant since long where he was staying. He was asked several times to vacate the quarters by the Executive Officer but he failed to vacate the same. He had also constructed a cowshed adjoining the quarters. Thereafter the Executive Officer obtained orders from the Chairman of the Municipality to get the quarters vacated and the unauthorized construction adjoining to the house demolished with the police help. Consequently, the Octroi Superintendent, Mr. Kalpataru Chakra and the officials of the Municipality including the informant together with the police party went to the spot at about 4 p.m. on 7.7.1987. On seeing the Municipal Staff, the Appellant Ghanashyam Parida and his wife closed the doors. The Appellant was then called by the officials and was informed about the purpose of their coming and asked him to vacate the quarters. At this the Appellant along with his family members and other persons brought out all his belongings from the quarters occupied by him and shifted to his own constructed house which was nearby that place; but he refused to demolish the cow -shed and removed the articles kept inside the same. Thereafter when the members of the team started to demolish the unauthorized construction, the Appellant picked up a bamboo pole piece (M.O.I) and dealt blow to the Octroi Superintendent Mr. Kalpataru Chakra as a result of which he sustained injury. He was examined by P.W. 6 who found the following injury on his person:

(3.) AFTER committal of the case to the Court of Session, Sessions Trial was commenced in which as many as seventeen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused persons produced one defence witness D.W. 1 Purusottam Mahanta.