The court clarified that the non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused must lead to questioning the prosecution's case, resulting in a conviction under lesser charges.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. The appellants Noor Mohammad Khan and Gul Mohammad Khan have jointly assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Sessions Case No.165 of 1995, whereby both the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 /34 of the IPC for causing hurt to P.Ws. 2 and 3. However, they were acquitted of the charges under Sections 34 1/307/34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. On the count of their conviction, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months.

2. Due to consistent absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, vide order dated 03.07.2025, Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty (1), Advocate has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in the matter. He has appeared and argued the matter at length.

3. Heard Mrs. Sarita Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 14.11.1994, in the afternoon at about 5 P.M., when the informant Tularam Harijan and Bhimasingh Lal were returning from Bamuni village, at that time, the appellant no.2-Gul Mohammad, seeing them, suddenly assaulted Bhimasingh Lal with fist blows and slaps and put him on the ground. Tularam intervened and he was also assaulted with fist blows and slaps. They returned to the village. When they reached the village at about 6 P.M., appellant no.1-accused Noor Mohammad seeing him, assaulted Tularam by means of a Tangi. At that time, accused Gul Mohammad caught hold of Tularam and accused Noor Mohammad inflicted injury on his neck by the Tangi for which Tularam sustained cut injury. Nilakantha Singh Lal came to their rescue and accused Noor Mohammad inflicted injury on him as well by a shaving blade. Ghasi Harijan snatched away the Tangi from Noor Mohammad and gave it in the custody of one Hussain Khan. The F.I.R. was registered on the basis of the aforementioned allegations. The investigation was carried on and the charge sheet was filed.

5. The appellants took a stance of complete denial and claimed to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 34 1/307/324/34 of the IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act.

6. Learned trial Court, by taking into consideration the defence plea as well as the prosecution evidence, recorded as follows:

“16. I have already mentioned the depositions of all the witnesses in detail. No major lacuna is found in their evidence to disbelieve their version. As regards the incident on the way which culminated in the incident of the village, it is the specific plea of the defence that both P.Ws.1 and 3 were drunk and in a drunken state fell on ‘Bisara’ and sustained injuries. Few hours after this incident, P.W.3 was examined by the doctor on police requisition. Neither the I.O. has mentioned in his requisition that P.W.3 was found drunk nor the Doctor while examining him found him drunk or smell of alcohol coming out of his mouth. So their taking liquor and in a drunken state falling on the way cannot be believed. That apart, no suggestion has been given to the Doctor that injuries found on P.W.3 is possible by falling over ‘Bisara’.

Coming to the incident of the village, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have clearly stated that near the house of Ghasi Harijan these accused persons assaulted P.W.3 for which he fell down and then Gul pressed him to the ground and accused Noor rubbed the edge of the Tangi on his neck in order to cut it causing linear cut injury.