Orissa High Court
Sankarsan Gouda @ vs State Of Odisha on 18 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.258 of 2019
Sankarsan Gouda @ .... Appellant
Shankarsan Gouda
Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate
-versus-
1.State of Odisha
2. Kartika Gouda .... ....Respondents
Mr. Arupananda Das,
Addl. Government Advocate
Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate
for Respondent no.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
18.09.2023
05. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the
respondent no.2.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant
Sankarsan Gouda @ Shankarsan Gouda under section 372
of the Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned judgment and
order dated 21.11.2018 passed by the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, Ganjam in S.T. Case No.84 of
2017 in acquitting respondent no.2 Kartika Gouda of the
// 2 //
charges under sections 341/323/307/506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
The prosecution case, as per the written report
submitted by the appellant before the O.I.C.,
PUrushottampur Police Station, in short, is that on
14.11.2016 at about 8.45 a.m., his son Surendra Gouda
(P.W.2) was standing in front of his house. At that time,
respondent no.2 Kartika Gouda along with two others,
namely, Gantei Gouda and Pari Gouda being armed with
Parsuram tangia, sword and Kati attacked him with
intention to kill. It is stated that respondent no.2 gave a
tangia blow on the head of P.W.2 and in order to save his
own life, P.W.2 ran away and entered into Dhoba Sahi.
On the written report presented by the appellant,
Purushottampur P.S. Case No.172 dated 14.11.2016 was
registered and Mr. R.S. Rao (P.W.10), the A.S.I. of Police
took up investigation of the case. During course of
investigation, the I.O. examined the informant, visited the
spot, examined other witnesses and also the injured on
15.11.2016 at SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar and issued
injury requisition. He conducted raid and arrested
respondent no.2 and forwarded him to the Court, i.e.,
learned J.M.F.C., Purushottampur. During course of
investigation, the I.O. did not find any material against
co-accused Pari Gouda and accordingly, on completion of
investigation, he submitted the charge sheet not only
against respondent no.2 Kartika Gouda, but also against
co-accused Gantei Gouda, who faced trial along with
respondent no.2 in S.T. Case No. 130 of 2017 and vide
// 3 //
common judgment and order dated 21.11.2018, he was
acquitted of all the charges.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined
eleven witnesses. P.W.1 is the informant, P.W.2 is the
injured, P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 are the occurrence
witnesses, P.W.10 is the I.O. and P.W.11 is the Medical
Officer.
The learned trial Court after assessing the oral as
well as documentary evidence on record, has been
pleased to hold as follows:
"In this case on hand, the oral evidence
produced by the prosecution adheres to the
prosecution theory of assault by Parsuram
tangia. On the other hand, the medical
evidence shows assault by a blunt object.
Parsuram tangia is not a blunt object, but a
sharp cutting weapon. Hence, it can be inferred
that the oral evidence regarding assault by
Parsuram tangia is not truthful. The I.O. has
categorically stated that his investigation
reveals the cause of dispute is the landed
property. In such situation, false implication of
accused to the alleged injury cannot be ruled
out. Moreover, I.O. has not seized any weapon
of offence in this case. The place of occurrence
has been stated differently by different
witnesses. On one hand, I.O. stated that place
of incident is in front of house of Rama Chandra
Nayak (P.W.7). Rama Chandra Nayak has also
// 4 //
stated that the place of occurrence is in front of
his house. On the other hand, the victim and
other witnesses have stated that place of the
occurrence is road running in front of the house
of the victim. The spot map vide Ext.2 shows
that house of Rama Chandra Nayak and house
of the informant are on a row separated by two
houses. In such situation, I hold that the ocular
evidence is not cogent regarding spot of
occurrence. Furthermore, the I.O. has
categorically stated that he received injury
report on 10.03.2017 whereas the injury report
shows that it has been prepared on
24.11.2017. This lacuna of the prosecution
evidence makes it case doubtful."
Law is well settled that the appellate Court should
deal with the reasons for acquittal and interfere with only
if the acquittal is perverse. The appellate Court has to
consider the fact that the learned trial Court has the
benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box and the
presumption of innocence is not weakened by the
acquittal. When two reasonable conclusions can be
reached, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding
of the learned trial Court. When two views of the matter
are possible, the view favourable to the accused should be
taken. When the order of acquittal is unreasonable and
admissible evidence is ignored, the appellate Court would
interfere with the order of acquittal.
Keeping in view the settled principle of law and after
// 5 //
going through the materials available on record,
particularly the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court
in acquitting the respondent no.2, it appears that the
medical evidence indicates that the injury was caused by
blunt object whereas it is the eye witnesses account that
sharp cutting weapon has been used to assault the
injured. The prosecution has not brought any clarification
from the doctor as to whether the injury caused on P.W.2
is possible by Parsuram tangia or not. Not a single eye-
witness including the injured has stated that blunt side of
the sharp cutting weapon was used during the assault.
The weapon of offence was not seized during investigation
and the place of occurrence as stated by the witnesses
was also contradictory. There is nothing on record to show
that material evidence on record has not been taken into
account or the finding is based on inadmissible evidence. I
am of humble view that the reasons assigned by the
learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent no.2 of all
the charges cannot be said to be faulty or perverse.
After hearing learned counsel for the respective
parties and on going through the impugned judgment and
the case record, I am of the humble view that there is
nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal
stands dismissed.
Signature Not Verified (S.K. Sahoo)
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY
Judge
Reason:
amitAuthentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Sep-2023 17:30:11
