An appeal was filed against conviction for injury caused to wife and father-in-law. The High Court examined the testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.3, finding it unshaken and corroborated by the doctor and other witnesses, confirming the trial court's finding of guilt.
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed; LCR returned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA NO.11 OF 2019
From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.08.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anandapur in S.T. Case No.91 of 2017.
…. Aju Penthei @ Aju Maharana Appellant
-versus-
…. State of Orissa Respondent
Appeared in this case by Video Conferencing Mode:
For Appellant - Mr.Dinesh Kumar Patra, Advocate
For Respondent - Mr. Soubhagya Ketan Nayak,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
HEARING & JUDGMENT :09.07.2021
D. Dash, J
Page 1 of 5
// 2 //
law’s house as illatom son-in-law. He was a goldsmith by profession and used to earn his living on daily wages. The couple had happy marital life for two to three years. In course of time, trouble arose when the accused got addicted to liquor and sat idle. His wife being dependent on his income raised protest as to such conduct of the accused. Accused then used to assault her. Situation reached at that level that Gita examined in the trial as P.W.4 had to lodged the F.I.R. stating all those facts giving rise to commission of offence under Section-498-A/323/506 of the IPC. The local police on receipt of the F.I.R. registered the case. Investigation being taken up was completed and charge-sheet was submitted.
Again on 10.07.2017 around 9.30 pm as usual, the accused having initiated quarrel with the wife-Gita for no reason, abused her and went on to assault her by means of brick on the back of her head causing bleeding injuries. Father-in-law of accused, Ganga examined in the Trial as P.W.3 when intervened was also not spared. Accused assaulted him on his right leg and head by means of axe having picked up the same from the room where it was lying. He having threatened the victim with dire consequences then fled away from the place. P.W.3 sustained fracture on his right leg and bleeding injury on his head. The matter being informed by P.W.4 at Ghasipura Police Station, P.S. Case No.177 of 2017 was registered and finally charge-sheet was submitted. Thus, the accused was placed for trial for commission of offence punishable under section-498A/294/325/307/506 of the IPC.
In the trial, the prosecution has examined in total fourteen witnesses. As already stated, wife of the accused has been examined P.W.4 and her father has come to the witness box as P.W.3. The Doctor, who has examined the injured P.Ws.3 and P.W.4, is P.W.10. Other co-
// 3 //
villagers have been examined as prosecution witnesses as also the Police Officer, who has investigated the case.
The Trial Court on critical examination of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and upon their evaluation at its level has found the accused guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section323/325 of the IPC. Accordingly, he has been sentenced as aforestated.
In order to address the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant questioning the sustainability of the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court; keeping in view the response from the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court is called upon to relook the evidence on record in ascertaining as to if based on such evidence, the finding of guilt as recorded by the Trial Court is in order or not. Undertaking said exercise, first of all let us go through the evidence of P.W.4, the wife of the Appellant. She has stated that about six months prior to her deposing in Court, during night hours, the accused came and asked for money which she refused, the accused being annoyed assaulted her by means of brick on the back of her head causing bleeding injury. She has further stated that apprehending danger to her life, when she cried for help; her father (P.W.3) arrived and asked the accused to cool down. The accused, however, picked up a Tangia lying on the verandah and dealt a blow with its blunt side on the right leg of her father causing fracture. Practically, the above evidence of this witness has remained unshaken and during cross-examination no such material has come to surface so as to raise any doubt on her testimony as regards the assault part as well as the factum of sustaining of injury by her and her father.
// 4 //
Although, the background facts as stated in the F.I.R. (Ext.6) lodged by the mother of P.W.4, who has been examined as P.W.5, slightly differ from the tendered evidence that in my considered view however cannot be taken to be having any such adverse impact so as to discard the version of P.W.4 as to the role played by the accused.
P.W.3 is the father of P.W.4. It is his evidence that first Gita (P.W.4) sustained bleeding injury and when he arrived, he was assaulted on his right leg which got fractured. The Doctor (P.W.10) examining these witnesses (P.W.3 and 4) has stated about said injuries sustained by them as noticed during examination. As per his evidence, the injuries sustained by P.W.3 has been found to be grievous and the fracture aspect has been confirmed on X-Ray examination and the report to that effect. The injury found on P.W.4 according to him are simple in nature.
P.W.1 another witness has also fully corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and the evidence of P.W.5, the mother of P.W.4 also provide full support as to the incident and role played by the accused therein.
The Trial Court having made detail examination of the evidence from all angles with the surrounding circumstances has failed to search out any doubtful feature so as to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws. This Court finds no such error to have been committed by Trial Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in so far as the guilt of the accused in voluntarily causing simple hurt to P.W.4 and grievous hurt to P.W.3.
// 5 //
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.
(D. Dash)
Judge
Narayan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court for voluntarily causing hurt is sustainable in the light of the evidence on record.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Aju Penthei
State of Orissa
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
