The court affirmed the conviction under Section 323 IPC based on corroborative testimonies, while emphasizing the necessity for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt concerning remaining charges.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Khurda, in T.R. Case No. 30/11 of 1996/95 (arising out of Fategarh P.S. Case No. 29 of 1994), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 3 23 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . However, considering the young age of the accused-appellant and the fact that it was his first offence, the learned Trial Court extended the benefit of the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and released him accordingly.

2. This appeal is pending since 1997. When the matter was taken up for hearing, consistently in many dates of hearing, nobody appeared for the appellant. Therefore, on the request of the Court, Mrs. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, learned counsel has agreed to appear for the appellant to assist the Court.

3. Heard Mrs. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Trilochan Pradhan of village Luniouta had a Gohira tree standing on his land situated in the aforesaid mouza. The accused persons, namely Pravat Pradhan and his father Sweta Pradhan, allegedly cut and removed the said Gohira tree from his land prior to 23.03.1994.

On 23.03.1994 at about 8:00 A.M., Ananda Naik, father of the informant, questioned the accused persons regarding removal of the said tree. This led to an altercation between them. Subsequently, on the same day at about 3:00 P.M., near the temple of the local deity, the accused Pravat Pradhan is stated to have assaulted Rabi Naik, the brother of the informant, by means of a lathi in the presence of Gokuli Naik and Surendra Naik. As a result of the said assault, Rabi Naik sustained serious injuries and was admitted to the Government Dispensary at Khandapara for treatment.

Trilochan Naik, the informant, lodged a written report of the incident before the A.S.I. of Jagannath Prasad Outpost on 30.03.1994, who took up the investigation pending registration of a regular police station case. Subsequently, PS Case No. 29/1994 was registered under Sections 3 41 , 323, and 325 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After the framing of charges and on the stance of denial, the accused-appellant was put to trial.

5. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in total, including three Investigating Officers (P.Ws. 5, 6, and 10) and one Medical Officer (P.W.7). The remaining witnesses, except P.Ws.1 and 3, were examined as witnesses to the occurrence.

Among the non-official and independent witnesses, P.W.1, P.W.3, and P.W.9 admittedly had not witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 is the father of the injured, whereas P.W.3 and P.W.9 are his brothers. P.W.2 and P.W.8 were the eye-witness to the occurrences.

6. The learned Trial Court, upon a careful appreciation of the evidence on record and primarily relying on the testimonies of P.W.4 (the injured) and P.Ws.2 and 8, found their statements to be mutually corroborative and consistent. Accordingly, the learned trial Court held as under:

“7.1. Therefore, besides the injured (P.W.4) himself, P.W.2 (Surendra Naik) and P.W.8 (Gokula Naik) are witnesses to the occurrence. These two witnesses have fully corroborated the as injured's version having been assaulted by the accused by means of ‘UKHUNI BADI’ causing bleeding injury ove