BISWAMBAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Prisoner's appeal, challenge is to the judgment dated 22.02.2008 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Jajpur in S.T. No.161 of 2006 where under the prisoner (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") has been found guilty under Sections 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and two years respectively. The sentences are directed to be run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case in a short compass was to the effect that one Ratnakar Sahoo (P.W.8) lodged F.I.R. on 19.02.2006 at Mangalpur Police Station alleging, inter-alia, that on 18.02.2006 midnight while he along with his wife - Satyabhama Sahoo (P.W.3) were fast asleep, he woke up hearing knocking of door. Once he opened the door he found his elder brother, appellant - Biswamber Sahoo, his wife - Dhumali Sahoo, their son - Jaga @ Jagabandhu Sahoo and another woman, namely, Jyoshna assembled in front of his house variously armed with like sword, crowbar, iron pipe and bamboo lathis. No sooner, they emerged at the scene of occurrence, those persons sprinkle chilli water on their face and simultaneously attacked them where appellant - Biswambar and his son dealt blows by means of sword and iron rod respectively. Hearing such commotion when their son - Pravakar Sahoo (P.W.4) arrived at the spot from his house, the appellant and others also assaulted him. On arrival of neighbours, the accused persons left the place. Due to assault, the informant (P.W.8), his wife (P.W.3) and their son - Pravakar Sahoo (P.W.4) sustained bleeding wounds. On such report, Mangalpur P.S. Case No.10 dated 19.02.2006 was registered, investigation taken up, injured persons were sent for medical examination and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against all the accused persons including the present appellant under Sections 452, 324 and 307 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. The case against appellant and his wife was committed to the Court of Sessions and the case against other accused persons was split up, as they absconded. The appellant and his wife pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed false implication over property dispute.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the injured witnesses viz. P.Ws.3, 4 and 8 being close relatives, the weapon of offence being not produced before the Medical Officer for his opinion and particularly when there is absolutely no evidence that the appellant had committed house trespass, the learned trial court erred in law as well as in fact in holding the appellant guilty under Sections 452 and 324 of IPC.