Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and prior enmity does not inherently ensure evidence reliability.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The petitioner, has filed the present Criminal Revision under Sections 401 & 397 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam- Gajapati, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2009 whereby the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Digapahandi, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.132 of 1997/T.R.No.15 of 2006 was confirmed.

2. The petitioner was subjected to prosecution in Pattapur P.S Case No.105 of 1997 registered under Sections 341 /294/324/506 of IPC .

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 08.06.1997 at about 12 P.M while the informant Arakhita Naik’s son Indra Naik had been to village Patiguda, the accused Rushi Naik out of previous enmity, hurled filthy language and demanded to know why he had been to his village. The accused criminally intimidated the son of the informant with threat to kill and also assaulted on his head by means of an iron pipe blow causing bleeding injury.

4. On the basis of such allegation made by the informant, Pattapur P.S case No. 105 of 1997 was registered. After completion of the Investigation, police submitted charge sheet on 05.08.1997 against the petitioner under Sections 341 /294/323/506 of IPC . The accused persons were put to trial.

5. In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution has examined ten witnesses. The plea of defence is that of completely denial. In proof of his plea, defence examined himself as D.W. 1 in support his case U/s 315 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned J.M.F.C, Digapahandi (Ganjam) analyzed the evidence in detail and recorded the conviction against the petitioner under Section 323 of IPC and acquitted him from the charges under Sections 341 /294/506 of vide judgment dated 23.07.2009 in G.R Case No.132 of 1997 corresponding to T.R No.15 of 2006 and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

7. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.07.2009 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Digapahanadi, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.132 of 1997 corresponding to T.R. No.15 of 2006 for the aforementioned offences was called in question by filing Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2009 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam - Gajapati, Berhampur by the petitioner.

8. The learned appellate Court vide its judgment and order dated 25.03.2011 has rejected the appeal inter alia stating as under under:

“10. A perusal of the evidence on record would show that injuries found by the Medical Officer sustained in the course of occurrence could not have been a false allegation. The only point for consideration, therefore, is whether the injuries were caused by the accused or some one else. If some one else has caused the injuries to PW 1, it is highly unusual that he will not drop out the real culprit and depose against the accused, who has nothing to do with the occurrence. The natural human conduct in such a case is that the informant had not left out the real culprit and has implicated the accused only who had committed the crime. The Medical Officer PW.6 has deposed and his report as contained in Ext.2 reveals that lndra Naik, has sustained injuries.

11. Much has been sought to be made of the previous enmity between the parties. But enmity is a double edged weapon which as frequently constitutes the accused’s motive for the crime as often it constitutes the informant's motive for false implication. In such a case the settled position of law is not to reject the evidence of the eye witnesses outright but to scrutinize their evidence carefully. Once it is established by careful scrutiny that the evidence is acceptable^,