Back
2013 Supreme(Ori) 477
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sanju Panda, B.R. Sarangi, JJ.
STATE OF ORISSA - APPELLANT
Versus
SANTOSH KUMAR SWAIN AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Government Appeal No. 17 of 1999
Decided On : 21-08-2013
B. Routray, A.K. Mohanty, B. Sarangi, S.S. Kanungo, A.K. Baral, B. Dash and Mr. D.P. Dhal, for the Respondent
The duty of the court to carefully consider the evidence of interested witnesses and the power of the appellate court to review the evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal.
Headnote:
Government Appeal - Criminal Law - Sections 148/302/149 IPC, Sections 336/337 IPC - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, the findings of the trial court, and the arguments presented by both parties. The court analyzes the discrepancies in the evidence, the timing of the FIR, and the credibility of the witnesses. It also emphasizes the duty of the court to carefully consider the evidence of interested witnesses and the power of the appellate court to review the evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal. The court ultimately sets aside the judgment of the trial court and finds the accused guilty under various sections of the IPC, sentencing them accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons, armed with deadly weapons, obstructed and attacked the deceased due to previous enmity, resulting in his death. The defense claimed that the deceased was accidentally injured during a fight between the two groups. The trial court acquitted the accused due to discrepancies in the evidence and timing of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the doctor's corroboration of the facts. It criticized the trial court's dismissal of the prosecution case and emphasized the duty of the court to carefully consider the evidence of interested witnesses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the witnesses, discrepancies in the evidence, and the timing of the FIR. The court also addressed the duty of the court to consider the evidence of interested witnesses and the power of the appellate court to review the evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the court to carefully consider the evidence of interested witnesses and the power of the appellate court to review the evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal. It also highlighted the need for a careful analysis of evidence and the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the trial court and found the accused guilty under various sections of the IPC, sentencing them accordingly. The Government Appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanju Panda, J. - The appellant has filed this Government Appeal challenging the judgment dated 15.3.1994 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Sessions Trial No. 9/92 (S.C. No. 40/92 GDC) acquitting the accused persons of the charges under Sections 148/302/149 IPC and charges under Sections 336/337 IPC. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that P.W. 4 was the informant. He lodged a written report at Bhejiput Out Post on 16.10.1991 at about 11 P.M. It was alleged in the FIR (Ext. 5) that on 16.10.1991 at about 8 P.M. while his cousin brother Panchu Sahu-deceased was coming from the paddy field, the accused persons, being armed with deadly weapons came out from the house of Santosh Kumar Swain (A-1) due to previous enmity and obstructed him. It was further alleged that A-2 abused him and instigated others to kill him. At that time, wife of A-1, Promodini Swain charge sheet accused not being faced the trial has been declared as absconder, handed over a Bhali (MO I) to her husband and instigated him to kill the deceased. Suddenly, A-1 pierced the weapon of offence on the chest of the deceased as a result of which he fell down there and other accused persons threw brickbats. The informant along with others, who was present at the spot, tried to rescue the deceased. However, due to pelting of brickbats, they failed to rescue the deceased. After knowing the deceased died, accused persons left the place to kill another person, namely, Krushna Swain and attacked his house. One Kailash Sahu, wife of Krushna Swain and others sustained injuries due to pelting of brickbats. Apprehending further disturbances, they shifted the injured and the deceased to Bhejiput Out Post in an Auto and with the help of Thana Babu, they shifted the deceased and injured to Khallikote Hospital. It was also alleged in the FIR that the informant named P.Ws. 5 and 6 (Sibaram Pradhan and Maguni Swain) as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Accordingly, the informant submitted the written report to the ASI, Bhejiput Out Post, who made a station diary entry and sent the FIR to Khallikote Police Station for registration of police case, where it was registered as Khallikote P.S. Case No. 69 of 1991 for commission of offence under Sections 147/148/336/337/302/149 IPC and the investigation taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of offence under the aforesaid Sections of the I.P.C. Out of the accused persons, namely, Banambar Swain and Promodini Swain were shown as absconders. Except those two accused persons, rest of the accused persons faced the trial. The case was split up against the aforesaid two accused persons as they could not be apprehended.
2. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses out of whom P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 were eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 7 was the Police Officer who received the written FIR at Bhejiput Out Post and he sent the same to Khallikote Police Station. P.W. 8 was the I.O. who registered the FIR as Khallikote P.S. Case No. 69 of 1991. P.W. 9 was the doctor who conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased.
3. The defence case was that the informant party including deceased attacked the house of accused A-1 being armed with various deadly weapons and hearing hulla, some of the villagers came there and protested such action on which there was a fight between those two groups. During the said fight, the deceased accidentally received a stab blow. Despite request of the wife of the deceased, he was not given immediate medical attention as a result of which the injured died. The absconding accused Promodini and Banambar were not at all present in the village on the said day. The accused A-1 did not give stab blow to the deceased as alleged and accused persons were falsely and maliciously implicated in the case due to previous enmity. The defence also disputed the place of occurrence and the presence of light at the spot.
4.
