Balaram Naik vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 6730 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
                                     CRLREV NO.976 OF 2014

                           Balaram Naik.
                                                               ........ Petitioner
                                   -Versus-

                           State of Odisha.
                                                               ........ Opp.party

                    CORAM :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
                                               ORDER

14. 30.06.2021 This is an application filed under Section 401

of Cr.P.C. seeking for quashment of the judgment

dated 08.09.2014 passed by the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in Criminal Appeal

No.13 of 2011 confirming the order dated

22.03.2011 of the learned Asst. Sessions Judge,

Dhenkanal in C.T. (Sessions) No.86 of 2007, vide

which the present petitioner has been convicted

under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC, and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for five years and pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default, to further R.I. for one year

under Section 307 of IPC with a further direction for

payment of Rs.8,000/- to the injured - Kalia Naik as

compensation, out of the fine amount, if realized.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the convict-

petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing

for the State through video conferencing mode.

3. A perusal of the papers on record would reveal

that the petitioner faced the trial in the court of the

learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T.

(Sessions) No.86 of 2007 for the charge of having

voluntarily caused hurt to the Informant, namely,

Laxmi Naik, and also having attempted to cause

death of Kalia Naik, the brother-in-law of the

Informant, by inflicting stab injury to his abdomen

by means of a "Bhala", on 16.05.2007. The

prosecution, in order to substantiate its case,

examined sixteen witnesses and produced

documentary evidence vide Exts.1 to 9, and Material

Objects, namely, M.Os.I to III during the trial. The

accused-petitioner took a plea of alibi in his defence,

and examined three witnesses from his side. The

learned trial Court on appreciating the evidence so

adduced by the rival sides held the prosecution to

have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The

defence plea of alibi was found to be

unsubstantiated. The order of conviction and

sentence passed by the learned trial Court under

Sections 307/323 of IPC was challenged by the

petitioner in Appeal, and the learned Addl. Sessions

Judge, Dhenkanal on reassessing the evidence on

record confirmed the same. The convict-petitioner

has, ultimately, approached this Court with the

present application, questioning the legality and

propriety of the said concurring order.

4. Participating in the hearing through video

conferencing mode, the learned counsel for the

petitioner argued that the prosecution having not

produced evidence to prove the requisite intention,

the conviction under Section 307 of IPC is bad in

law. He further submitted that for no good or valid

reason the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner in his

defence has been disbelieved by the Courts below.

According to the learned counsel, the prosecution

having not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,

the benefit of doubt ought to be credited to the

account of the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State

submits that the evidence produced by the

prosecution being clear, cogent and sufficient, and

both the Courts below having believed the

prosecution case after scanning the evidence in right

perspective, there is no scope for this Court to

interfere with the impugned judgments, in exercise of

revisional jurisdiction.

6. I have gone through the impugned judgments

vis-à-vis the evidence adduced by the rival sides

during the trial. Both the P.Ws.1 and 2 are

unequivocal that while the P.W.1 was returning to

home after fetching water from tank, the petitioner

dealt her a push causing her fall on ground with

injury, and when the P.W.2 went to the rescue of the

P.W.1, the petitioner divulged threat to his life, and

then brought a 'Bhalla' from his house and pierced

the same to the belly of the P.W.2. It is their further

evidence that blood oozed out from the belly of P.W.2

and when the petitioner pulled the 'Bhalla', its

wooden handle got released leaving the iron portion

inside the belly. It would further reveal from their

evidence as well as the evidence of the medical

expert (P.W.14) that he was shifted to District

Headquarters Hospital, Dhenkanal and then

admitted to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital,

Cuttack. It is the evidence of the P.W.14 that there

was a rusted iron 'Bhalla' pierced to the abdomen of

the P.W.2, and the same caused injury to the

mesentery of ileum (small intestine). The nature of

the injury was grievous in nature and sufficient to

cause death in ordinary course of nature. The rusted

iron 'Bhalla' was produced during the trial as M.O.I

and the P.W.14 has stated in evidence that during

surgical operation he had removed the same from

the body of the P.W.2.

7. Not only the evidence of the P.Ws.1 and 2 is

clear, cogent and natural, there is also ample

corroboration to the same from independent side.

That apart, as stated supra, there is medical

assurance to the factum of assault and injury.

Although the prosecution witnesses were subjected

to cross-examination at the instance of the defence,

nothing substantial could be elicited from them

much less to discredit them or disturb the probative

character of the prosecution version. Having regard

to the materials on record as to the seat and nature

of injury, nature of the weapon used in the assault

and other circumstances as depicted, the contention

of the petitioner, qua the conviction under Section

307 of IPC is found to be bereft of substance. Both

the Courts below are also found to have well scanned

the evidence vis-à-vis the defence plea of alibi, and

rightly disbelieved the said defence plea. The

prosecution has well proved its case, and this Court

finds no reason to disturb the concurring order of

conviction and sentence against the petitioner.

8. In the result, this CRLREV being devoid of

merit stands dismissed.

L.C.R. received along with a copy of this order

be returned forthwith.

As the restrictions due to resurgence of

COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel

for the parties may utilize a printout of the order

available in the High Court's website, at par with

certified copy, subject to attestation by the

concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide

Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as

modified by Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th April,

2021.

...........................

S.Pujahari, J.

MRS