A division bench of the Orissa High Court comprising of Justice D. Dash and Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi allowed three appeals filed by accused persons under Sections 341/323/294/302/307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The court was of the view that prosecution has failed to prove through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the role these accused persons in the said incident.
Facts:
Allegedly, on the 22nd Day of July, 2010, the Informant, namely, Sarthak Naik (P.W.6) was working with his elder father Hadu Naik (the deceased) and his brother-in-law Suresh Dhibar (P.W.7) near the Railway Bridge of Sonaparbat. It is stated that during then, the Appellants arrived there, abused them in filthy language and assaulted them by means of lathi. The Informant and his brother-in-law sustained bleeding injury on their head on account of said assault by the accused persons. It is further stated that the accused persons assaulted the deceased with boulder causing profuse bleeding from his stomach.
They all were then admitted in the Government Hospital at Rourkela for treatment where Hadu Naik in course of treatment succumbed to the injuries. The First Information Report, being lodged by Sarthak (P.W.6), Tangarpalli P.S. Case No.87 of 2010 was initially registered for commission of offence under section 341/294/323/307/506/34 of IPC, which stood converted to one under section 302 of the IPC in view of the death of Hadu in the hospital. The accused persons faced the trial being charged for commission of offence under section 341/323/294/302/307 read with section 34 of IPC. The plea of the accused persons in defence is that of complete denial.
Observations of the Court:
The court found that there was no challenge to the fact that the deceased Hadu met a homicidal death resulting from the injuries which he had received. When admittedly the parties were in enimical terms, evidence of P.Ws.6 & 7 in a generalized manner without inspiring any confidence in mind as to which accused did exactly what in the incident at least in relation to the deceased, the Trial Court, in the court’s view, was not right in holding the accused persons guilty for commission of offence under section 302/323 read with section 34 of IPC merely finding that there being the incident, the deceased has met his death having received the injuries.
The evidence of PW 6 and 7 who are relatives of the deceased and have the animosity with the accused persons requiring stricter scrutiny fail to stand up to the legal test. That apart when according to them, the incident took place in a public place, the prosecution has also to share the blame for not citing any independent witness to provide corroboration to the evidence of P.W.6 and 7 so as to overlook the infirmities in their evidence as already pointed out more so when no such acceptable explanation on that score has also been offered for the Court to ignore that aspect. For the aforesaid, the court was of the view that prosecution has failed to prove through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the role these accused persons in the said incident.
Decision:
All the three Appeals stood allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela in S.T. Case No.143/6 of 2010-2011 were hereby set aside.
Case: Mahesh Pradhan (In JCRLA No.64/2011) Raju Pradhan (In JCRLA No.63/2011) Sunil Penthel (In JCRLA No.65/ 2011) vs State of Odisha
Citation: JCRLA No.64 of 2011, JCRLA No.63 of 2011 and JCRLA No.65 of 2011
Coram: Mr. Justice D. Dash and Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi
Pronounced on: 28.10.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
