M. SOMANATHAN Vs. M. KUSTU PATRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who was the informant, P.W.1 in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1994 (S.C.107 of 1994 G.D.C.) has challenged in this revision the legality of Judgment and order dated 27.1.1995 passed therein by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur acquitting the opposite parties 1 to 6 -accused persons of the charges for commission of offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'I.P.C.').

(2.) PROSECUTION case was that the alleged occurrence took place on 8.10.1993 in between 10.30 to 11.00 A.M. when the deceased was standing with his bicycle in front of the tea stall of P.W.2. It was alleged that the opposite parties -accused persons reached there in a bullock cart raising hue and cry and hurled abuses at the deceased. Thereafter, they assaulted the deceased by means of weapons inflicting serious bleeding injuries. It was asserted that on the date of occurrence itself at about 9.30 A.M. there was quarrel between the accused persons and deceased when the deceased asked accused Gadu @ Raghu Patra to refund Rs. 200/ - which he had borrowed from the community fund. On the basis of F.I.R. Ext. 1 lodged by deceased's younger brother P.W.1, the case was registered and investigation was taken up. The deceased was removed to M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur where he was examined and medically treated by doctors including P.W.5. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 9.10.1993. In course of investigation, witnesses were examined and seizures were effected. Also, dead body of the deceased was subjected to inquest under Ext. 2 by police and post mortem examination under Ext. 5 by P.W.6. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed against the accused persons and accordingly, they faced the trial.

(3.) IN defending the impugned Judgment and order it was contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties -accused persons that the learned trial Court upon cogent analysis and critical appreciation of the evidence on record has found the entire prosecution case to be suspicious in view of several circumstances. There was material contradictions between the medical evidence and ocular account of the witnesses. The eye -witnesses were not found to be reliable. The prosecution case as depicted at the earliest in the F.I.R. was at variance with the ocular account of the witnesses depicted in Court and also inconsistent with the medical evidence. Inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. at the police station and despatch of the F.I.R. to Court remained unexplained. The prosecution also did not explain multiple injuries on one of the accused persons and thereby suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. In such circumstances, there was no scope to interfere with the impugned Judgment.