Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Champeswar Rana - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa - Opp. party
Criminal Revision No. 258 of 1999
Decided On : 17-11-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Birendra Kumar Nayak
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra Addl. Standing Counsel
The court can overturn concurrent findings of facts if material contradictions in the evidence are overlooked, and the prosecution has not successfully established the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Offence under section 324 - 324 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case, evidence presented, contradictions in witness statements, and the medical evidence. The court analyzes the contradictions in the evidence and the medical opinion, citing a precedent to highlight the improbability of the prosecution's version. The court ultimately sets aside the lower courts' judgments and acquits the petitioner of the charge under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting the injured with a Tangia. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found material contradictions in the evidence of the key witnesses and noted that the medical evidence contradicted the witness testimonies. It cited a precedent to highlight the improbability of the prosecution's version and ultimately acquitted the petitioner of the charge.
Issues: Material contradictions in witness statements, reliability of witness testimonies, and the medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can disturb concurrent findings of facts if material contradictions in the evidence are overlooked, and the prosecution has not successfully established the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower courts' judgments and acquitted the petitioner of the charge under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J.
The petitioner Champeswar Rana faced trial in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepur in G.R. Case No. 109 of 1993 for offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 22.04.1995 convicted the petitioner under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and order dated 08.05.1995 sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred), in default, of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for fifteen days.
The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Session which was heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balangir in Criminal Appeal No. 59/20 of 1995-97 and vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.1999, the learned Appellate Court has been pleased to uphold the judgment and order of the Trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the appeal, hence the revision.
2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report is that on 29.06.1993 at about 6.30 a.m. while P.W.2 Manoj Kumar Sahoo was working near the tube well of the Primary School of Kayapadar, at that point of time the petitioner came with a Tangia and dealt three successive blows to P.W.2. The first blow fell on the head of the injured and the subsequent two blows fell on his back. The occurrence was seen by one Shankar Bhoi (P.W.3) and subsequently, some more persons of the village congregated at the spot.
On the basis of the written report presented by Dayanidhi Sahoo (P.W.1), father of P.W.2 at Kamsara outpost, A.S.I. of Police Santosh Kumar Pradhan (P.W.6) made a Station Diary entry and took up investigation of the case and sent the report to the officer in charge of Tarva Police Station, who on receipt of the same, registered Tarva P.S. Case No.43 of 1993 on 30.06.1993 and directed P.W.6 to investigate the matter.
During course of investigation, P.W.6 examined the informant and other witnesses and sent the injured to Kamsara dispensary under police requisition. He seized a Tangia being produced by the petitioner and prepared seizure list. He arrested the petitioner and forwarded him to Court and on completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet on 21.07.1993 under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The defence plea is one of the denial and it was pleaded that due to previous dispute between the parties, the case has been foisted.
4. During course of trial, in order to establish its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses.
P.W.1 Dayanidhi Sahu is the informant in the case and he is the father of the injured. He is a post occurrence witness who took P.W. 2 to the hospital for treatment.
P.W.2 Manoj Kumar Sahoo is the injured and he stated that the petitioner gave him four blows by means of an axe.
P.W.3 Shankar Bhoi did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile.
P.W.4 Sankapani Nag is an eye witness to the occurrence and he also stated that the petitioner assaulted P.W.2 by means of an axe and gave four blows to him.
P.W.5 Dr. Benudhar Pandey was the Medical Officer of Government Dispensary, Kamsara who examined the injured on 29.06.1993 and proved his medical report (Ext.3). He subsequently gave opinion regarding the possibility of the injury by the axe vide Ext.4.
P.W.6 Santosh Kumar Pradhan, who was the A.S.I., of Police, Kamsara outpost is the investigating officer of the case.
The prosecution exhibited four documents. Ext.1 is the F.I.R., Ext.2 is the seizure list, Ext.3 is the medical report and Ext.4 is the report of the Medical Officer on the query of the investigating officer.
5. The learned Trial Court held that there is no delay or laches found in the investigation. It was further held that it is proved that the petitioner dealt Tangia blows with the sharp side on the back side of the head of P.W.2 causing simple bleeding injury.
The learned Appellate Court held that the abrasion which was found on the backside of the neck corroborates the ocular evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 and t
