STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SRIDHAR GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and the judgment is as follows : The order of acquittal granted in favour of twelve accused persons in the judgment -dated 16.05.1988 of learned Sessons Judge, Balasore,Camp at Bhadrak in Sessions Trial No.16 of 1988 is under challenge both by the State in the Government Appeal and by the informant in the Criminal Revision. After analogous hearing of both the matters, this common judgment is delivered to abide the result in both the cases.

(2.) THE factual backdrop, which not in dispute between the parties and also noted in the impugned judgment, is that there was political and social rivalry between the prosecution party members and the accused persons. The occurrence of assault, which was the subject matter of trial, occurred at 9.00 P.M. on 04.09.1987. Statement of the informant in the present case, i.e., P.W.1 -Kumari Kuntala Sethi is that several persons including the present twelve accused persons forming unlawful assembly attacked Tauli Sethi (P.W.2), his son Kailash Sethi, the deceased in this case and their supports and in furtherance of the common object they inflicted injuries by various weapons like Lathi and Katuri and because of that, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital on 06.09.1987, whereas, P.W.2, Tauli Sethi, P.W.3, Sanatan Jena sustained injuries as per the injury certificates Ext.7 and 8. The accused persons came with the defence plea that Tauli Sethi the deceased and the other prosecution witnesses besides the accused persons in the counter case, came and attacked accused Sridhar Ghosh and damaged his house, besides causing injuries to his supporters and in that process, the deceased and the aforesaid two injured might have received injuries, but such injuries were not inflicted by the present accused persons, either intentionally or otherwise. To substantiate the charge under Section 148,302/149 IPC, read with Section 323/149 IPC, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and relied on documents marked as Exts. 1 to 19, besides the Katuri marked as M.O.I. As against that accused persons relied on the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 and also the injury certificate in their favour, Exts. B to K and the F.I.R. in the counter case marked Ext. A.

(3.) IT is the effort of the prosecution as well as the informant to set aside the aforesaid judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that once the Trial Court found the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 to be consistent and corroborative, it was not proper on his part to reject the said evidence on the aforesaid ground of semblance of probabilities present in favour of the defence plea. After going through the entire evidence on record and the findings recorded, we find that the aforesaid criticism against impugned judgment is not fair inasmuch as consistency in the prosecution evidence relating to the assault, in this case is not sufficient to prove the charge when the prosecution was rightly found to be guilty of suppressing material facts relating to the place of occurrence and non explaining the injury on the accused persons. The benefit arising out of those circumstances having been rightly granted in favour of the accused persons, we do not find any illegality in the order of acquittal. Accordingly, the Government Appeal and the Criminal Revision are dismissed. Appeal and revision dismissed.