Non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution's credibility, crucial for establishing guilt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.10.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in Sessions Trial Case No. 214/8 of 1990 arising out of G.R. Case No. 593 of 1989, whereby the appellants along with others were convicted under Section 395 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC), and sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The remaining sixty accused persons were acquitted of all charges.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2025, the IIC, Pattamundai Model Police Station has submitted a written report dated 15.07.2025, inter alia, informing this Court that appellant no.2-Jagir Bhal, appellant no.4-Pada @ Padmanav Nayak, appellant no.7-Batakrushna Pradhan and appellant no. 10-Pati @ Patitapaban Bhal have already expired, and the rest of the appellants are residing in their village. Along with the report, the death certificates have been submitted, which were taken on record.

3. Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 09.07.1989 at about 3:30 PM, one Raj Kishore Pradhan (P.W.5) was allegedly chased by accused No. 09 Jadumani Rout (later acquitted) along with his wife and daughter while he was on his way to mill paddy. It was alleged that they were armed with thenga and tenta and intended to assault him. The said Raj Kishore ran towards the village and took shelter, following which the accused persons, alleged to be seventy in number, armed with weapons like tenta, farsa, and sticks, chased him and reportedly pelted stones, broke open the doors of houses, entered therein, assaulted some villagers and removed household articles and agriculture produce.

5. The oral information regarding the occurrence was given by P.Ws. 16 to 17, the then officer-in-charge of Pattamundai Police Station, at about 7 PM on the same day, which was reduced into writing and registered as the plain paper FIR. Investigation ensued and Charge- Sheet was filed against seventy persons under Sections 454 and 395 IPC, resulting in their commitment to face trial before the Court of Sessions.

6. In support of the charges, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. P.Ws. 1 to 12, 15 and 16 were projected as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 13 was the doctor who had allegedly examined the injured persons. P.W. 14 was a seizure witness, and P.W. 17 was the Investigating Officer. The defence examined four witnesses and relied on several documents, including injury reports, which showed that several accused persons had sustained injuries during the occurrences.

7. The defence case was one of total denial and pleaded that a petty quarrel between two rival village factions occurred on the village road, in the course of which both sides sustained injuries. It was further contended that no incident of house trespass or dacoity occurred and that the case was the result of group enmity, a counterblast to other proceedings between the parties.

8. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, came to a finding that there indeed existed deep-seated enmity and party faction between the complainant side and the accused persons, which was evident from the FIR and other materials on record. It was noted that most of the prosecution witnesses were related and interested, and there were proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. between the parties. The Court found that the prosecution had fail