The court acquitted the appellants on the grounds of benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies and lack of explanation for injuries sustained by the accused, undermining the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The four appellants consolidately preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 24.05.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No.124/26 of 1996 arising out of G.R. Case No.88 of 1995, whereby the appellants are found guilty of the offences under Sections 325 /34 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years on that count.

2. Heard Mr. A. K. Mahakud, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3 During pendency of the present appeal, the appellant No.1-Jitna Rana and the appellant No.2-Dhanu Rana were expired. Therefore, the present appeal qua them stood abated. Hence, the present appeal is confined only to appellant Nos.3 and 4.

4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 17.04.1995, the informant-Mitrabhanu Rana (P.W.6) lodged an F.I.R. (Ext.14) inter alia making an allegation that on 17.04.1995 at about 8.00. P.M., one Mahendra Rana called for a village meeting. Jitna Rana, Dileswar Rana, Jogeswar Rana, Dhanu Rana, Mahendra Rana, Dayanidhi Rana and two son-in-laws of Dayanidhi Rana congregated at courtyard of the house of Dayanidhi Rana. In that meeting, Jitna Rana questioned the informant as to why he has attended the meeting even after boycotting him from the society. When the informant protested for the same, the accused persons assaulted him by means of thenga. Somehow, he could escape from the spot and run away towards his house and the accused persons followed him and reached at his house. By hearing the disturbance from outside, the father of the informant Bisia Rana came out. The accused persons have also assaulted him. The father of the informant subsequently expired. Therefore, the accused persons were charge-sheeted for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 302 /325/34 of I.P.C. On their stance of denial and claim of trial, they were put to trial.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined as many as eleven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.6 was the informant and the son of the deceased. P.W.7 is the wife of P.W.6. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the son-in- laws of the deceased whereas P.Ws.5, 8 and 9 were the independent witnesses of the locality. P.W.1 was the Medical Officer of the Garposh P.H.C., who had examined the accused persons as well as P.W.6 and the deceased on police requisition. P.W.2 was also the Medical Officer of the Govindpur P.H.C., who had conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Bisia Rana P.W.10 was the A.S.I. of Garposh out-post, who had received the F.I.R. and investigated into the case. P.W.11 was the I.O. of the case, who had conducted further investigation and submitted charge-sheet.

6. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence of the informant (P.W.6) and two doctors (P.Ws.1 and 2) has arrived at a conclusion that the accused persons are not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 /34 of I.P.C. rather they are held guilty of the offence under Section 325 /34 of I.P.C and on that count, sentence has been awarded.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

8. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and in the light of the evidence on record and analysed the same. The learned trial Court in paragraph-9 of the judgment has elaborately discussed the evidence on record, which reads as under:-

“9. The next point for consideration is whether the accused persons had assaulted Mitrabhanu a