STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RAJKISHORE SUBUDHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the, State, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Sessions Trial Case No. 2/1 of 1987 acquitting all the Respondents of the charges under Ss. 302/34 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution allegations are that the family of the accused persons and the family of the deceased were at the daggers end prior to the date of occurrence. About ten months prior to the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the father of the Respondents and the family of the deceased relating to a well. Some time after such quarrel the three Respondents had thrown a bomb which had caused severe injuries to the deceased and he was treated in the hospital for about three months. On 29.4.1986 while the deceased was returning from Jatni after attending his work in the Malgodown, near about Chitralaya Cinema, the three Respondents suddenly emerged from the bush on the road side. The Respondents Saroja and Dukha being armed with farsa and Respondent Rajkishore being armed with tenta, caused severe injuries to the deceased. P. Ws.1 & 2, the sons of the deceased were coming from behind and saw the occurrence from a distance of about 200 qubits and shouted for help. Respondents thereafter fled away from the place. The said two sons; P. Ws.1 & 2 came to the spot and found their father lying with several bleeding injuries. P.W.2 remained at the spot whereas P.W.1 rushed to the Jatni Police Station for lodging the F.I.R.. P.W.1 and the police officials came to the spot and found the deceased was still alive though he was not able to say anything. The deceased was carried in the trekker to the Capital Hospital in the same vehicle where he was declared dead on arrival. On the basis of such allegations, the F.I.R. was registered, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed for commission of offences under Ss. 302/34 Indian Penal Code against all the Respondents.

(3.) Prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove the charges but none was examined on behalf of the defence.