10.04.2024 Savitri Ratho, J This Revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated 25.01.2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepur in G.R. Case No. 51 of 2001/T.R. Case No. 126 of 2002, convicting the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 294,325,506 of the IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 days and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 15 days for the offence under Section 294 of the IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of CRLREV No. 249 of 2006 Page 2 of 7 Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo RI for one year and 6 months for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo further period of six months for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. There was a direction for the sentences to run consecutively. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2003 dismissed the appeal on 13.04.2005 and confirmed the conviction and order of sentence passed by learned C.J.M., Sonepur and the said judgment has also been challenged in this Revision. PROSECUTION CASE 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.03.2001 at about

7.00 P.M when the informant was away from the house, accused Umesh Tandi came to the house of the informant and standing in front of the house abused his wife Smt. Chuman in obscene languages. When the informant returned home, he asked the accused not to create disturbance. But the accused who was armed with an iron piece (used in plough) threatened the informant and dealt a blow on his right hand causing swelling injury. When other persons arrived at the spot, they caught hold of the accused and snatched the iron piece from his hand. CRLREV No. 249 of 2006 Page 3 of 7 3. The petitioner was charged under Section 294,506,325 of the IPC. DEFENCE PLEA 4. The plea of the defence was one of the denial. The specific stand in the statement recorded under 313 of the Cr.P.C. was that due to political rivalry, a false case had been foisted against him. WITNESSES 5. Nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 (Smt. Chuman Biswal) is the wife of the informant, P.W.2 (Smt. Mukta Tandi) is occurrence witness, P.W.3 (Rajkumar Suna) is an eyewitness, P.W.4 (Jana Kumbhar) is the occurrence witness, P.W.5 (Kusle Biswal) is the informant, P.W.6 (Jarasandha Tandy) is the seizure witness, P.W.7 (Natha Biswal) is the seizure witness, P.W.8 (Dr. Lingaraj Tripathy) is the medical officer, P.W.9 (Anchal Padhan) is an investigating officer.

6. Relying on the evidence P.W.4 and P.W.5 which were found to be to be consistent , the learned Trial Court found that the FIR in the case has been filed promptly and nothing adverse was noticed in cross-examination of the witnesses and the circumstances appeared to be probable and reliable and accepted the same. The petitioner was CRLREV No. 249 of 2006 Page 4 of 7 convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 294,325,506 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder, in the manner as mentioned above.

7. Learned Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.

8. Mr. T. R. Meher, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside in view of the glaring discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses and as the oral evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence. His alternate submission is that that the petitioner has remained in custody for a few days during investigation of the cas