Back
High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT
SK.BADAR ALIAS BADIRUDDIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
Criminal Revision 102 Of 1992
Decided On : 05/18/1994
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 326 IPC - CONVICTION - ASSAULT ON POLICE PERSONNEL - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - PRINCIPLE OF FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS - APPLICABILITY - SENTENCE - MODIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was convicted under Section 326 IPC for assaulting a police officer while he was discharging his duties. The petitioner thrust a harpoon to the face of the officer, causing him serious injuries. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 307 IPC, but the appellate court found him guilty of an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the evidence on record clearly established the guilt of the petitioner. The victim and other witnesses had consistently stated that the petitioner had inflicted the injury. The court rejected the petitioner's plea that the prosecution version was false and that he was falsely implicated. The court also held that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was not applicable in the present case, as the evidence against the petitioner was sufficient to prove his guilt, even though some of the other accused persons had been acquitted.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was applicable in the present case? 3. Whether the sentence imposed on the petitioner was excessive and should be modified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence on record, including the testimony of the victim and other witnesses, was sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the petitioner had thrust a harpoon to the face of the victim, causing him serious injuries. 2. The court held that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was not applicable in the present case, as the evidence against the petitioner was sufficient to prove his guilt, even though some of the other accused persons had been acquitted. The court noted that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a mandatory rule of evidence and that it is open to the court to differentiate between accused persons who have been acquitted and those who have been convicted. 3. The court held that the sentence imposed on the petitioner was excessive and should be modified. The court noted that the occurrence had taken place twelve years back and that the petitioner had already spent some time in custody. The court reduced the custodial sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment and raised the fine amount to Rs. 4000.00, with a default sentence of one year.
Final Decision: The court convicted the petitioner under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4000.00, with a default sentence of one year. The court also directed that Rs. 2000.00 out of the fine amount be paid to the victim.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) PETITIONER Sk. Badar alias Badiruddin (hereinafter also referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality of appellate judgment passed by the learned Second Addl. Session Judge, Puri finding his guilty of an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'ipc'), convicting him thereunder and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000. 00 in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years by the Asst. Sessions Judge, Khurda. The petitioner stood trial along with twenty six others for having committed various offences and causing injuries on police personnel while they were discharging duties as public servants.
( 2 ) FACTUAL matrix as presented by the prosecution is as follows: On 15-1-1992 at about 8. 30 p. m. the officer-in-charge of Tengi Police Station along with several other police personnel went to village Dikhitpada by a private truck to execute pending H. S. We against some of the villagers of that village, keeping the truck on the road, they proceed on foot towards the village through the back side of cashew plantation. At the outskirt of the village, they caught hold of two persons namely Erphan and Gulu against whom S. 8. We were pending. They shouted for help. All on a sudden several persons including the petitioner being armed with various weapons surrounded police personnel even though they gave their identity and started saying that they shall not be allowed to go. They attacked indiscriminately on the members of police party. The petitioner thrust a harpoon to the face of the Officer-in-charge, and others assaulted other persons accompanying him. The victim started running towards the truck, and the mob chased them. The truck driver focussed the head light on the mob. The occupants of the truck came to their rescue. The injured persons were taken by the truck to Tangi Police Station. Information was lodged at the Police Station. A case was registered, the injured persons were sent for medical examination. The officer-in-charge Mr. N. N. P. Singh (PW. 12) sustained bleeding injuries on his left-eye, and was treated at the SCB Medical College Hospital. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted.
( 3 ) IN support of the prosecution case, eighteen witnesses were examined mostly consisting of those who had sustained injuries. Plea of accused persons was one of denial. According to them the injured persons had been to the village on the date and time of occurrence in civilian dresses, and misbehaved with same ladies who had gone to answer call of nature. On their shouting chor, chor, out of fear the police personnel ran away. While running they fell on the road full of ditches, shrubs and tree stumps and sustained injuries.
( 4 ) LEARNED Asst. Sessions Judge, Khurda acquitted all the accused persons, except the petitioner, who was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. In appeal, learned appellate Judge held that though petitioner had thrust a harpoon to the left eye of P. W. 12, yet there is no evidence that injury inflicted was sufficient to cause death of the victim. The Doctor (P. W. 11) had not whispered a word if the injury inflicted was sufficient enough to cause the death of P. W. 12. There was no evidence at any point of time during hospitalisation the life of the victim was at stake. Therefore he was found not guilty under Section 307 IPC, but one held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner in support of revision application submitted that prosecution version having been disbelieved in material particulars and large number of co-accused persons having been acquitted, conviction should not have been maintai
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
