SURENDRANATH MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners challenge the order of conviction and sentence under sections 307, 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The trial court has imposed a sentence of 5 years RI. and fine of Rs. 2001- with a default sentence of one months RI. on each of the accused under Section 307. Indian Penal Code, and no separate sentence was imposed in respect of other offences. The appellate court having confirmed the order of conviction and sentence, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) It is alleged in the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 1 that there was previous enmity between the accused persons and the injured (P.W. 4) who is a co-brother-in-law (Sadhu) of the informant. Earlier to the incident the accused persons had threatened the injured as they belonged to rival factions of the trade union of Aska Spinning Mill. On 28-11989 at about 12.50 p.m. while the injured and the informant were returning from Aska Notified Area Council Office and were proceeding towards the house of one Dutikrushna Panda, they noticed that one Ambassador Car bearing registration number O.R.L. 301 was speeding towards them from be hind. Petitioner No.1 was driving the said vehicle and petitioner No.2 was sitting inside the car. The car dashed against the injured from behind as a result of which he fell into a nearby drain and the left-side front wheel of the car also got stuck in the drain. Both the petitioners came out from the car. Petitioner No.2 caught hold of the injured and petitioner No.1 assaulted him with knife causing multiple injuries. At that point of time some police officers reached the spot and rescued the injured and snatched away the knife from petitioner No.1. On the aforesaid allegations F.I.R. was lodged immediately at the spot and thereafter the formal case was registered at the police station and on conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted under sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code against both the petitioners.

(3.) The plea of the accused persons was one of complete denial. It was claimed that due to Union rivalry and previous enmity a false case had been foisted against the petitioners.