SATRUGHANA MAHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titlagarh in Sessions Case No. 61/21 of 1989.

(2.) Prosecution case in short is that on 17.10.1988 midnight, when one Rabindra Kumar Mohapatra (informant-P.W.1) was talking with Amulya Mohapatra in front of his house, this accused who is his adjoining neighbour arrived and abused P.W.1 without listening to anyone and despite the protest of P.W.1. It is said that this accused then threatened P.W.1 to kill. Hearing hullah raised by this accused, his sons since acquitted came there when the sister and mother of P.W.1 also arrived. The matter somehow subsided and P.W.1 went inside his house.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant (accused) submits that on the face of contradictory evidence as to the seizure of weapon of offence i.e. M.O.1, the Kati, the trial court having not considered the same properly has erroneously fastened the liability upon this petitioner for offence under section 324 of IPC. Placing the evidence of P.W.8, the seizure witness who has said that the wife of the accused gave that M.O.1 for being seized, he has further placed the evidence of P.W.10, the I.O. who has said that M.O.1 was seized from the house of the accused. So, this contradictory evidence, according to him, should have been viewed by the trial court in disbelieving the evidence of other prosecution witnesses that this accused had assaulted P.W.1 by said M.O.1. In this connection he has drawn the attention of the Court that when P.W.4 has deposed that Kati (M.O.1) had been thrown on the floor, how is it possible without any further connecting evidence to believe that it was recovered from the house of the accused.