BIJAYA KUMAR SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two revisions arise from the judgment in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1985 of the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar. Petitioner Bijaya Kumar Swain was convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, the other petitioners were convicted under Sections 307/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and all the three petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo one year each for the offence punishable under Sections 455/34, I.P.C. and appellant Bijaya Kumar Swain was further convicted under Section 354, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeals against their conviction having been confirmed, the petitioners are in revision before this Court.

(2.) Prosecution case is, on 21-3-84 petitioner Bijaya Kumar Swain reported before the Officer-in-charge of Gangapur Police Station that at about 12 midnight on that day while he was returning from Aska to his village on his motor-cycle near his house in village Kondupadar one male and a female tried to assault him with deadly weapons and in order to save himself, he assaulted them by means of a sharp cutting weapon and had kept them in his house. The Officer-in-Charge made a station diary entry to that effect and proceeded to the spot along with petitioner Bijaya. At the spot he found P.Ws. 12 and 14 were in the house of petitioner Bijaya Kumar Swain. Both were found having several bleeding injuries on their person. There P.W. 11 gave an oral report alleging that petitioner Bijaya Kumar Swain prior to the occurrence had threatened to kidnap her. This matter was conveyed through her brother to his maternal uncle who was then staying in village Kalasandhapur. On the date of occurrence i.e. 21-3-84 her uncle Prasanna Panda (P.W. 14) had come with a gun to their house during the day time. At about midnight, the petitioner came and knocked at the door. But P.W. 11 out of fear did not open the door. Thereafter, this petitioner broke open the door and forcibly entered inside. He dragged her as a result of which, her bangles were broken. When her mother (P.W. 12) and uncle (P.W. 14) tried to rescue her, the petitioner physically lifted P.W. 12 to his house. The other two petitioners who were with petitioner Bijaya, assisted him in taking her mother inside the house of petitioner Bijaya. When P.W. 14 tried to rescue P.W. 12, it was alleged, the petitioner also took him inside his house where he assaulted both by means of a knife causing severe cut injuries on their person. Thereafter, petitioner Bijaya again came back to their house and dragged P.W. 11 with an evil motive. When she raised hullah, her sister Bijayalaxmi (not examined) came to her rescue and thereafter petitioner Bijaya went away in the motor cycle with the gun of P.W. 14. After some time when the wife of petitioner Bijaya opened the door, she (P.W. 11) noticed her mother was lying senseless with several bleeding injuries on her person.

(3.) Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel for petitioner Bijaya Kumar Swain and Mr. B. Senapaty, learned counsel for petitioners Simanchal and Ramesh submitted that the prosecution having failed to prove its case against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioners are entitled to an acquittal. Mr. J. M. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that this is a case where the two injured persons, P.Ws. 12 and 14, were severely injured and further the case of the prosecution has been substantially proved on the basis of the evidence of the injured persons. The evidence, according to Mr. Mohanty, has been duly analysed by both the courts below and, therefore, this Court being a revisional court and the power of the revisional court being limited to the extent of only judging the propriety and correctness of the reasonings and the findings, both the revisions are liable to be dismissed.