STATE OF ORISSA Vs. ARJUN CHETTY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment dated 27th September, 1996 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore acquitting the accused persons from the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in short, 'IPC is assailed by the State Government in Government Appeal No. 10 of 1998.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.5.1995 Ramdas Kondhapan and his brother, Dhanapati Kondhapan along with their co -villager went to village Chik Amba to purchase subsidized rice which was sold at the rate of Rs.2/ - per Kg. At about 2.00 P.M. they returned home without bringing any rice. Raghunath Kondhapan, their father asked for the reason. Dhanapati told his father that he was standing in the queue to purchase rice and at that juncture, accused Arjun Chetty quarreled with him and assaulted him. At that stage, his brother, Dhanapati and Ors. intervened. Consequently, there was a tussle and accused persons gave a push to Dhanapati and after he fell down on the ground, indiscriminately dealt kicks and fist blows to his back, chest and abdomen. It is further alleged that the accused persons threatened to kill the villagers of Phatakijan if they would come to purchase rice. Due to the above assault and threat given by the accused persons, both the brothers had to return to their village. Ramdas also complained of pain in his abdomen. His father Raghunath admitted him in Dasmantapur PHC and thereafter went to Dasmantapur police station and filed an F.I.R., which was marked as Ext.1. On the basis of the said F.I.R., Dasmantapur P.S. Case No. 22 of 1995 was registered and investigation commenced.

(3.) IT is stated that a false case has been foisted against them. In order to substantiate the charges framed, the prosecution got examined eleven witnesses in course of trial. Out of them, P.W.1 was the father of the deceased and was the informant. He is not an eye witness to the occurrence, but then heard about the incident from his sons. P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 10 were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.5 was a witness to the inquest, P.W.6 was a witness to the seizure, P.W.7 was the scribe of the F.I.R. (Ext.1), P.W.8 was the constable, P.W.9 was the Medical Officer, who examined the deceased and admitted him in the Hospital and also conducted autopsy, P.W. 10 was the younger brother of the deceased and P.W. 11 was the investigating Officer.