STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BHAJAMAN KONHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Bhajaman Konhar faced trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Case No. 52 of 1992 for the charge under Sec. 302, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 17.02.1992 accused assaulted his cousin Ringa Konhar (the deceased), as a result of which ultimately he died at the district headquarter hospital on 19.02.1992.

(2.) To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and relied on the documents marked Exts. 1 to 17 and the material objects such as lathi, M.O. -I and the wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased marked M. Os. II to VII. Amongst the witnesses P. Ws.1 and 2 were relied on as eye -witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 7 was the doctor, who treated the deceased at Phulbani headquarter hospital. Amongst the documents Ext. 9 is the Inquest Report, Ext. 3 is the F.I.R., Ext. 17 is the Post -mortem Report and Exts.1 and 2 are the reports from the State Forensic Science & Laboratory, Bhubaneswar.

(3.) (SIC) Referring to Ext. 17, Learned Sessions Judge recorded that the deceased suffered homicidal death due to ante -mortem injuries. He assessed the evidence of P. Ws.1 and 2 in furtherance of proof of charge under Sec. 302, I.P.C. against the accused and found that though P.W. 1 in her examination -in -chief stated that she was an eye -witness to the occurrence of assault, but in the cross -examination she admitted that she did not see the actual assault. The evidence of P.W. 2 in the examination -in -chief was to the effect that she did not see any part of the assault. Evidence of both P. Ws.1 and 2 being not challenged by the prosecution goes to show that accused was among the persons who took care of shifting the deceased to the hospital at Tikabali at the first instance and thereafter to the Headquarter Hospital, Phulbani. The witnesses to the seizure of the weapon of offence, i.e. lathi, did not support the prosecution case. Thus, on analysis of such evidence Learned Sessions Judge recorded the finding that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused is the author of the injuries, which resulted in homicidal death of the deceased.