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.

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, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, learned counsel.

3. Heard Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. During pendency of the present appeal, it has been reported that the appellant No.5- Judhistir Bhoi and the appellant No.6-Gokul Bhoi have expired. Therefore, vide order dated 10.07.2025, the appeal qua the deceased-appellant Nos.5 and 6 stood abated in absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. moved by her legal heirs or next friend. Accordingly, consideration of the present appeal is confined to the other surviving appellants.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Gurucharan Banchhor, lodged the F.I.R. alleging that one Fakir Banchhor had a flower garden situated at Ghasiapada under village Pardhiapali. On 19.07.1993, the cows belonging to accused Biswa Bhoi allegedly entered the said garden and damaged some of the flower plants, which led to a quarrel between Srikar Banchhor and Biswa Bhoi, during which Biswa is stated to have assaulted Srikar.Thereafter, Kujari Naik deposited a sum of Rs.11/- with the Ward Member of village Pardhiapali for convening a village meeting to resolve the dispute relating to the damage caused to the flower garden and the alleged assault on Srikar Banchhor. Accordingly, a meeting was fixed to be held on the evening of 20.07.1993.

It is further alleged that on 20.07.1993 at about 5:30 P.M., all the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly and being armed with deadly weapons such as lathis, tangi, iron rod and gupti, came together to Ghasiapada (Pardhiapali) and shouted slogans threatening to eliminate the Ghasias. Some of the accused persons allegedly entered the house of Dasarath Banchhor (P.W.2) and forcibly dragged him out. Accused Panjara Bhoi is alleged to have first dealt a blow with a tangi on the head of Dasarath Banchhor, but the latter caught hold of the tangi, as a result of which he sustained an injury on his hand. When Panjara attempted to inflict a second blow, Fakira Banchhor (P.W.9) caught hold of the tangi and warded off the blow, thereby saving Dasarath. It is further alleged that accused Panjara thereafter snatched a lathi from one of his as