Kampala Rana And Others vs State Of Orissa
2023 Latest Caselaw 2471 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           CRA NO.304 OF 1993
             (From the judgment and order dated 30th July, 1993 passed
             by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in S.C. No.55/19
             of 1989)

                 Kampala Rana and others
                                                            ...        Appellants

                                              -versus-

                  State of Orissa                           ...        Respondent



              Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:

                     For Appellants : Mr.Nilachal Samal,
                                      Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

                                                          -versus-

                     For Respondent: Mr.S.K.Mishra,
                                                  Addl. Standing Counsel
              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CORAM:

                            JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                          JUDGMENT

28.03.2023.

Sashikanta Mishra,J. Five accused persons namely, Tunu Rana,

Kampala Rana, Singhalu Rana, Upasu Rana and Sani

Rana faced trial in Sessions Case No.55/19 of 1989 in

the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh for

committing the offence under Sections

148/332/307/149 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the

Orissa Forest Act. Two of the accused persons namely,

Tunu Rana and Upasu Rana were acquitted while

Kampala Rana, Singhalu Rana and Sani Rana were

convicted for the offence under Sections 324/332 of

I.P.C. and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in

default, to undergo R.I. for one month on each count.

The present appeal was preferred by them against

such conviction and sentence. Out of the three

Appellants, Kampala Rana (Appellant No.1) and Sani

Rana (Appellant No.3) expired during pendency of this

appeal. Hence the Appeal stands abated against them.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution case

is as follows;

On 1st January, 1989 at about 4.00 P.M. one

Biranchi Prasad Mishra, the Forester of Turekela along

with other staff were performing patrolling duty inside

Bagbahal Reserve Forest. They saw the deceased-

Appellant (Kampala Rana) carrying a log on his

shoulders which he concealed in his Basti situated

inside the reserve forest. After following him to the

Basti the forest staffs found that a new house was

being constructed by the father and brother of

Kampala Rana by using timber and about 20 pieces

of freshly cut teak logs were kept there. On query all of

them admitted to have illegally removed teak logs from

the reserve forest. While they were attempted to be

apprehended, suddenly, accused-Kampala Rana came

to the spot holding an axe (M.O.1) and threatened to

assault them. While the axe was snatched away from

his hand by Biranchi Mishra and a forest guard,

Kampala ran away. Then accused Sani Rana along

with his brother, accused Singhalu Rana came there

holding a Tabli. Though he attempted to assault the

forest staff, they managed to snatch away the Tabli

from his hand. Thereafter, again Sani and Kampala

being armed with Thenga came and accused Singhalu

came with a burning wooden plank (Nia Khunta) and

assaulted the forest staff causing bleeding injuries. The

family members of the accused persons scolded the

forest staff in filthy language and also assaulted them

by wooden planks (Katha Falia). Accused Singhalu set

fire to the straw heap under which the logs were

concealed. When the forest staff were returning,

accused Kampala Rana and Singhalu Rana assaulted

them by means of Thenga. Thereafter Biranchi Prasad

Mishra lodged a written report at Turekela P.S. leading

to registration of Turekela P.S. Case No.1/1989

followed by investigation. Upon completion of

investigation charge sheet was submitted under

Sections 147/148/307/332/379/149 of I.P.C. and

Section 27 of the Orissa Forest Act.

3. The accused persons took the plea of denial and of

false implication.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined 10

witnesses, out of whom P.W.1 is the informant and

P.Ws.2,3,4,6 and 8 are the other forest staff. P.W.10 is

the doctor, who examined the injured forest staff after

the occurrence. Besides, the prosecution exhibited 16

documents. On the other hand, defence examined 7

witnesses including accused Upasu Rana as D.W.1.

Defence also proved 8 documents from its side. Apart

from the above, prosecution also proved 8 material

objects.

5. After appreciating the evidence on record including

the evidence adduced by the defence, the trial Court

held that the offences under Sections 307/148 of I.P.C.

and Section 27 of the Orissa Forest Act was not

established. It was further held that there is no

evidence against the accused Tunu Rana and Upasu

Rana. However, the Court held that there is enough

evidence to show commission of the offence under

section 324/332 of I.P.C. by accused Kampala Rana,

Singhalu Rana and Sani Rana.

6. As regards the defence evidence, the trial Court

found that that the same did not inspire confidence

and therefore, was not acceptable. On such findings,

the Appellants were convicted and sentenced as

aforesaid.

7. Head Mr.Nilachal Samal, learned Amicus Curiae

and Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

for the State.

8. Mr. Samal has questioned the correctness of the

judgment of conviction of the trial Court by contending

that there is no independent corroboration of the

version of the prosecution witnesses inasmuch as all of

them are official witness and therefore, the finding of

guilt recorded by the trial Court basing thereon is

untenable. Mr. Samal further contends that the trial

Court has committed manifest error in rejecting the

entire evidence adduced by the defence even though

the same offered a plausible alternative to the

prosecution story.

9. Per contra, Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing

Counsel, has submitted that the plea of false

implication taken by the accused persons has no legs

to stand inasmuch as no evidence was adduced to

show that the forest staff had held grudge against

them. Mr. Mishra, further submits that the defence

evidence was found to be patently unbelievable and

therefore, rightly rejected by the Court below.

10. As regards the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C,

this Court finds that the informant being examined as

P.W.1 deposed by giving vivid description of the

occurrence. He referred to the assault by the different

accused persons on the forest staff with weapons. The

other forest staff namely, Agasti Biswal (P.W.2),

Madhusudan Patel (P.W.3), Madhusudan Chand

(P.W.4), Sankirtan Pradhan (P.W.6) and Subas

Chandra Das (P.W.8) have fully corroborated the

version of the informant (P.W.1) in all material details.

All these witnesses were extensively cross-examined by

prosecution. Nothing material was elicited from them

to disbelieve their sworn testimony. This Court, further

finds that the plea of false implication owing to prior

enmity has not been crystallized in the form of

suggestions given to the prosecution witnesses by the

defence at the relevant time.

11. Be that as it may, the fact of injuries being

sustained by the injured witness has been otherwise

corroborated by the doctor (P.W.10) who examined

them on police requisition. In his evidence, he clearly

referred to the injury sustained by P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.8

and P.W.2 and one Dhruba Biswal, (who was not

examined as a prosecution witness). He also described

the injuries in detail. He further deposed that he had

examined the weapons of offence namely Thenga

(M.O.III), Bhar stick (M.O.IV) and opined that the

injuries were possible to have been caused using such

weapons. He was also cross examined with regard to

the injuries said to have been sustained by one

Gurubari Rana, accused-Singhalu Rana, Suina Rana

and one Tunu Rana describing their injuries as well.

This Court therefore, finds that the evidence relating to

assault by the accused persons on the forest staff

causing injuries on their person is clearly established.

12. The accused persons have taken a plea that the

forest staff forcibly entered into their house, assaulted

them, raped their daughters etc. In support of such

plea, the defence has examined 7 witnesses. In this

regard, this Court has perused the evidence of D.Ws.1

to 7. As it appears, a counter case was lodged on

behalf of the accused persons against the forest staff,

but apart from the fact of lodging of the counter case

and some injuries being sustained by some of the

accused persons and their family members, there is no

evidence to show that the forest staff had previous

enmity with them so as to commit the acts alleged by

the defence. In any case, the defence plea itself proves

presence of the forest staff at the spot which

undisputedly is within the Reserve forest area and also

proves that they were discharging their duties.

13. Perusal of the judgment of the court below reveals

that the ocular and medical evidence adduced by the

prosecution has been considered in the proper

perspective and having regard to the nature of

injuries, it has been held that the charge under Section

307 of I.P.C. is not established, but there being

evidence of the accused persons assaulting the forest

staff using different kinds of weapons such as Thenga,

Tabli and Bhar stick etc., the trial Court held the

offence under Sections 323/332 of I.P.C. clearly

established against accused Sani, Kampal and

Singhalu.

14. As regards the defence evidence, the trial court

held that their evidence does not inspire confidence

and that these allegations were not established during

investigation of the counter case started by them. This

Court finds no reason to differ from the findings of the

trial Court in this regard. Thus, it is seen that the

evidence on record clearly shows that on the date and

time of occurrence while the forest staff were

performing their duties, they detected commission of

some forest offence by the accused persons in course

of which they were assaulted by them. Though learned

Amicus Curiae has argued that there is no

independent corroboration yet, this Court holds that

independent corroboration is not necessary in each

and every case. There is no reason to doubt the

veracity of the evidence of the official witnesses

particularly when nothing is shown as to the reason for

the forest staff to falsely implicate the accused persons

in the case. This Court therefore, finds the argument of

learned Amicus Curiae not valid enough to persuade

this Court to take a different view than the trial Court.

15. In the result, this Court finds no merit in the

appeal preferred by the Appellants, which is therefore,

dismissed.

16. Before parting with the case, this Court deems it

proper to place on record its appreciation for the able

assistance rendered by Mr.Nilachal Samal, Amicus

Curiae, in adjudication of the appeal. The professional

fee of Mr. Nilachal Samal is fixed at Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees ten thousand) only.

.................................. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

Ashok Kumar Behera