The court held that insufficient evidence of intent to cause death led to the acquittal of the accused from serious charges while affirming some convictions based on the established facts.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner, who was the informant, challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Bhadrak in Criminal Appeal Nos.08 & 09 of 2004 against all the accused persons for the offence charged under Section 307 of the IPC and also by questioning the sentence awarded to the petitioners in so far as the charges U/s 324/34 are concerned.

2. In the present case three accused persons were put to trial for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 341 /307/326/324/34 of the IPC . The three accused persons are Manmohan Panigrahi, Srinibas Panigrahi and Karunakar Mahakud.

3. The prosecution case in brief was that on 07.09.2001 at about 7.00 P.M, Sridhar Panigrahi (the injured )while returning to his house in a cycle from Charampa market through the canal road, near the bridge connecting to his village, suddenly accused persons, namely, Tika @ Srinibas and Karunakar @ Sandri focused torch to his face, he fell down from the cycle. At that juncture, accused Karunakar attacked with a bhujali, which hit his left side of forehead. When the injured was trying to escape, another accused person, Srinibash attacked with a farsa which hit his throat. Even after such assault, the injured tried to escape from the spot, but at a little distance, he was restrained by another accused person Manmohan, who pushed him. Thereafter, Manmohan left the place saying to the other accused persons “KAKA MORO KAMA SARIGALA TUMBHE TUMBHA KAMA SAMBHALA”. Thereafter other two accused persons assaulted the injured person mercilessly by means of farsa and bhujali. Both the accused persons left the place saying “TU ETHARA UPARAKU JAA, AMBHE DELHI JAUCHU”. After sometime, the injured person shouted “MARIGALI MARIGALI”. Hearing hulla, villagers came to the spot and the injured narrated the incident before them.

Thereafter, the injured was taken to the hospital for treatment.

4. The brother of the injured came to know about the incident and lodged a written report before Bhadrak (R) Police Station. On the basis of the said report, police registered Bhadrak(R) P.S Case No.178 of 2001 corresponding to G.R Case No. 948 of 2001 corresponding to S.T Case No. 99/110 of 2002 against the accused. After completion of investigation, police submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 341 /323/326/307/34 of IPC and charge was framed against the accused persons under those sections. The accused persons were put to trial.

5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. The plea of defence was that of completely denial. In proof of their plea, defence exhibited three documents.

6. The learned trial Court vide the judgment and order dated 12.03.2004 convicted all the accused persons for commission of offences under Sections 341 / 326/ 324/ 307/ 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of five years for charges under Sections 307 /326 of the , to undergo R.I. for a period of fifteen days for the offence under Section 341 , undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 324 of the . They were also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences under /326 of the , in default to undergo further R.I. for three months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

7. The opposite party no.2 Manmohan Panigrahi filed Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2004 against the aforementioned conviction and sentence, whereas opposite party nos.3 & 4 Srinibas Panigrahi and Karunakar Mahakud have fil