SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Ori) 30

High Court Of Orissa
K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. M. MAHAPATRA
BALGOPAL PANDA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 77  Of  1988
Decided On : 03/13/1990

Advocates Appeared:
J.MOHAN, P.PALIT

The prosecution is not obliged to explain minor and superficial injuries sustained by the accused, but it is bound to explain serious injuries.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - FIR - Suppression of true FIR - Medical evidence - Discrepancies - Benefit of doubt to accused - Acquittal.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was killed in an assault by the appellants and other accused persons. The prosecution case was that the deceased was assaulted with lathis by the appellants and other accused persons, resulting in his death. The appellants denied their involvement and claimed alibi.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the true FIR was suppressed by the prosecution and that the medical evidence was not reliable. The court also found that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by two of the accused persons.

Issues: 1. Whether the true FIR was suppressed by the prosecution? 2. Whether the medical evidence was reliable? 3. Whether the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by two of the accused persons?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the true FIR was suppressed by the prosecution because the first Investigating Officer returned the written report submitted by the informant to him and did not treat it as FIR. 2. The court held that the medical evidence was not reliable because there were discrepancies between the external injuries found on the deceased's body and the internal injuries found during the post-mortem examination. 3. The court held that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by two of the accused persons because the prosecution witnesses denied that the accused persons had sustained such injuries.

Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants.

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) IN all 15 accused persons, including the appellants and injured Srikara Panda and Banamali Panda, stood trial for having committed offences under Sections 148, 323 and 302 read with Sections 34 and 149 I. P. C. in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Balangir. Out of them, appellant Balgopal was convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 323, appellant Jalbudu was convicted for the offence under Section 325, and appellants Digri and Bharat were convicted for the offence under Section 323 I. P. C. While appellant Balgopal was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, the others were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various terms. The rest of the accused persons were acquitted of all of charges. In this appeal, the conviction and sentence of the appellants have been assailed.

( 2 ) FACTS of the prosecution case are narrated in brief. There is a hill, named, Barapahad from which a natural stream, locally known as Arakha Khol flows and irrigates lands of villages Khagsakana and Kandhapali. The villagers of neighbouring village Rajapali attempted to divert the water of the stream so as to irrigate their own lands and with that end in view, two days prior to the occurrence, dug a Nala from it, as a result of which the water of the stream was diverted to the lands of village Rajapali. The villagers of Khagsakana did not tolerate it and raised a Bandha to stop flow and diversion of water through the Nala. On the date of occurrence, namely, 27-9-1984, at about 8. 00 a. m. , the informant (P. W. 1), the deceased (Bibachha Padhan), P. Ws. 6 and 7 and some others belonging to Khagsakana came near the stream to watch the flow of water and sat under the shade of a Guhuria tree standing beside Burda Sonepur road. About half an hour thereafter, the appellants and the other accused persons being armed with lathis came and severely assaulted P. W. 1, the deceased and P. Ws. 6 and 7. During assault, the main part was played by appellant Balgopal who severely assaulted the deceased on his head resulting in serious bleeding injuries. After assault, the appellants and the other accused persons fled away. The deceased was carried in a severely injured and unconscious condition to his, own house where he breathed his last. P. W. 1 lodged FIR before the police in the village itself, after which investigation commenced. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Search and seizures were made Prosecution witnesses were examined. Injured witnesses were sent for medical examination. After close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted.

( 3 ) THE defence of the appellants was total denial of their participation in the alleged offences. On the other band, they pleaded that P. W. 1 and the other villagers attacked and assaulted the villagers of Rajapali by Tangis resulting in serious injuries on two of the accused, named, Srikara Panda and Shankarsan Panda. The additional plea of appellant Balgopal was alibi on the ground that he was living in village Paikabahal where he was serving as a teacher in the local M. E. School.

( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge found only the appellants guilty of the offences already referred to above and acquitted the rest.

( 5 ) DURING hearing, it was not disputed that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

( 6 ) MR. P. Palit, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, raised the following contentions :- (1) Ext. 1/1 was by no means the first report submitted to the Investigating Officer. Earlier to Ext. 1/1, a station diary entry (Ext. 16) had been made and the informant (P. W. 1) presented a written report to the Investigating Officer narrating the facts of the incident. Either of these reports was not treated as FIR and so, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the incident as it bad occurred had been suppressed, and altogether a different case in order to suit the prosecution party so as to involve a large number of villagers of Rajapali in a heinou















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top