PURNA CHANDRA PARIDA Vs. GANESWAR PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EACH of the four petitioners has been convicted under Sections 447 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to fine of Rs. 30/ - and Rs. 40/ - respectively, and in default, to undergo S. I. for fifteen days on each count.

(2.) PETITIONERS nos. 1 and 2 are sons of petitioner no. 4 and petitioner no. 3 is their cousin. According to the complainant (P.W. 2), on 28 -3 -64, petitioner no. 1 entered his bari which is plot no. 933 and was about to climb and pluck coconuts from his tree. On protest, himself and his cousin (P.W. 5) were assaulted by all the petitioners. P.Ws. 2 and 5 were treated by the doctor in Nimapara for some days, thereafter they came to Puri where they received further treatment and then filed the complaint petition. Petitioners, in defence, deny the occurrence and allege that out of existing enmity P.W. 2 has filed a false case against them and other P.Ws. have falsely deposed. The courts below accepting the testimony of the P.Ws. convicted, and sentenced the petitioners, as stated above.

(3.) IT has no doubt been elicited during cross -examination of P.Ws. 3 and 4 that the former's father has filed an O. T. R. case against petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 4 has filed a case against father of P.W. 4. Both the courts have noticed these facts, while considering the evidence. These P.Ws. who claim to have witnessed the occurrence have deposed about different petitioners committing assault. Merely because each of them may have some bias against individual accused, it will not justify rejection of their evidence as they have no ostensible reason for deposing against the others. Further, interestedness, even if proved, will not justify rejection of their evidence in toto, though it may necessitate scanning their evidence more carefully and with caution. In the present case, these two P.Ws. have corroborated P.Ws. 2 and 5, the victims of the assault. The Courts below have accepted their testimony and I find no valid reason to differ from the assessment of the evidence by them. Thus, there is no merit in the first contention.