Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Saran Panjar Bhoi – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.S. Mishra, J.
The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.09.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. No.269 of 1994, whereby the learned trial Court convicted them for the offences under Sections 147 /148/324 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and on that count, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 148 /149 of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offences under Sections 324 /149 of I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 147 of I.P.C.
2. The present appeal has been pending since 1995. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the appellants. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, a
The prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused undermined the credibility of its case, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants under the benefit of doubt.
Non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution's credibility, crucial for establishing guilt in criminal cases.
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.
The failure of prosecution to explain injuries on the accused leads to a reasonable doubt about their culpability, justifying acquittal.
The need for caution in convicting accused based on the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses, especially in cases of free fights where injuries on the accused are not properly explained.
(1) A case and counter case arising out of same incident should always be tried by same Court.(2) Right to private defence – Reasonable apprehension of death or genuine apprehension of grievous hurt ....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in witness testimonies and non-examination of the Investigator can lead to acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
