SANATAN ROUT Vs. DHARANI PANDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appears for the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the opposite party is present. This Criminal Revision was filed on 02.01.1989 and it was admitted as per Order No. 8, dated 02.02.1989 as against the order of acquittal of accused Subash Sahoo.

(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel is present. On the request of the Court, he addresses the Court on behalf of the prosecution. After going through the evidence on record, charge for the offence under Sections 148/323/379/302/324, read with Section 149, I.P.C. and the order of conviction recorded under Sections 148/379/324/149, I.P.C. against 12 of the accused persons. This Court finds that the order of acquittal was recorded in favour of the rest of the accused persons for rest of the charges on the basis of contradictions/omission in the evidence, i.e., the statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure of P.Ws. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10, the eye -witnesses to the occurrence. In that respect each of the material was confronted to each of them and so also to P.W. 14, the first Investigating Officer. Reasons for utilizing the contradiction are well discussed and in that respect This Court finds no illegality or perversity. Under such circumstance, This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal granted to the other accused persons by extending the benefit of doubt. So far as the accused persons who were convicted, they preferred Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1988 and, as per the Judgment delivered on 20.01.2006 by Hon'ble the Chief Justice (as His Lordship then was), that appeal has been disposed of upholding the order of conviction but modifying the sentence by imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - (one thousand) on each of the accused -Appellants.