GANGADHAR KARJEE Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Gangadhar Karjee faced trial in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi in Sessions Case No.27 of 1994 for offences punishable under sections 307/323/294 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.1995 though acquitted the petitioner of the charges under sections 323/294 of the Indian Penal Code but found him guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only), in default, to undergo S.I. for six months on each count under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report lodged by Dinabandhu Sahu (P.W.1) before Inspector in Charge, Parlakhemundi Police Station is that the petitioner who was constable no.176 of Orissa State Reserve Police at Parlakhemundi, complained when he was allotted duty at Ullabhadra at the time of roll call on 17.06.1994 at about 8.00 a.m. in presence of the constables and havildars and he further complained as to why he was not allotted duty at Treasury and why Mrutunjaya Behera (P.W.13) was allotted duty at Treasury. When the petitioner abused P.W.13 in obscene words, others who were present there including the informant persuaded him not to behave in such irrational manner but the petitioner did not listen them rather started abusing them. After a little while, he threw away a rice plate on P.W.1 and there the matter was subsided at the intervention of the other constables.

(3.) After submission of charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal procedure where the learned Trial Court charged the petitioner under sections 307/323/294 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act on 24.11.1994 and since the petitioner refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt.