K.Rajeswar Vs State

S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant- K. Rajeswar Rao @ Raju has filed the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment dated 25.11.1999 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in G.R Case No.1022 of 1991, whereby he has

¶12

been found guilty of the charges under Sections 452/323 and Section

¶13

506/34 of the IPC. On that count, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 452/34 of the IPC, R.I. for one year for the offence under Section

¶14

325/34 of the IPC and R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 506/34 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶15

2. Heard Ms. Upasika Samantaray, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent -State.

¶16

3. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 13.11.1991, the accused- Rajeswar Rao along with the co-accused Bainath Badtia and Sankarsan Raula @ Sankar trespassed into the residence of the informant Saraswati Behera at Aravindanagar, Berhampur and abused her in obscene language. When the informant protested such unauthorized entry and indecent behavior of the accused persons, accused Rajeswar Rao assaulted her with an iron rod causing fracture on her left forearm. Seeing this abuse and attack on her mother, Sunita Behera protested and tried to intervene, but the accused persons, particularly, Rajeswar Rao manhandled her outraging her modesty. The accused persons then threatened the informant that, if she would report the matter to the police authorities, then they would lift her daughter and would also further assault. It is said that after the

¶17

Page 2 of 15

¶18

incident, injured Saraswati was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Berhampur, where she was admitted as an indoor patient for nearly a month. While she was in the hospital, she sent a written report to the Police Station and the police authorities investigated into the case, filed the charge sheet. The accused persons, denying the charges, claimed trial.

¶19

4. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 was the doctor, who treated the injured informant and submitted the injury report to the police. P.W.2 was a post-occurrence witness, who did not support the prosecution allegation. P.W.3 was the Investigating Officer. P.W.4 is the informant Saraswati Behera, who has spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W.5 is her daughter Sunita Behera, who was also an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.6 is the son of the informant, who reached the spot after the occurrence and took the mother to the hospital and later on scribed the report and took the report to the Police Station.

¶20

5. After analysis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court arrived at the following conclusion:

¶21

Page 3 of 15

¶22

“12. The evidence of P.W.4 is thus corroborated by eye witness, P.W.5, post occurrence witness P.W.6, medical evidence of the doctor P.W.1, evidence of the I.O. and the documents like, F.I.R., injury report and bed-head ticket. The medical evidence, oral and documentary leave no room for any doubt that P.W.4 had fracture and grievous injury on her left fore-arm and that such injury was caused with hard and blunt object like, iron rod. Similarly the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 and F.I.R. clearly show that accused K. Rajeswar Rao inflicted that grievous injury with an iron rod.

¶23

13. The plea of the accused is that he has been falsely implicated in the case because the marriage negotiation between the brother of accused Bainath and P.W.5 failed to materialize. It is admitted by P.Ws.4 to 6 that one Sudhir is the brother of accused Bainath and there was a marriage proposal between Sudhir and P.W.5, but the said proposal did not materialize. There is nothing on record to show that accused K. Rajeswar was in any way responsible for the failure of the marriage proposal or that the informant and her family members were in any way aggrieved with K. Rajeswar. Simply because this Rajeswar happens to be a friend of Bainath, it cannot be presumed that he has been roped in falsely in this case by the informant. On the other hand, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.6 that Sudhir had taken some money from the family of the informant and when this money was demanded, the occurrence of trespass, abuse and assault took place.

¶24

The defence also indicated delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and non-examination of independent witness. As has been stated earlier, the occurrence of assault took place inside the residential house of the informant where no outsider was present. So, non-examination of any outsider cannot be adversely viewed. The informant and P.W.6 have also explained satisfactorily the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and there is nothing to show that the prosecution allegation was subsequently fabricated.

¶25

The evidence of the prosecution, therefore, clearly show that K. Rajeswar Rao caused the grievous injury on the left hand of the informant voluntarily with the assistance of his associates. Therefore, he will be liable for the offence U/s. 325/34 I.P.C.”

¶26

Page 4 of 15

¶27

6. The accused-appellant being aggrieved by the findings recorded by the learned trial Court leading to his conviction and sentence, has filed the present appeal.

¶28

7. Ms. Samantaray, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a significant delay of ten days in lodging the F.I.R. after the incident, which creates a reasonable doubt that the story put-forth by the prosecution is concocted one and aiming at settling score with the appellant and the case has been foisted out of vengeance.

¶29

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me to the prosecution witnesses and tried to point out the apparent contradiction in the evidence. According to her, reading of the evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction because the incident happened on 13.11.1991 and on the very next day, the informant injured P.W.4 was admitted to the hospital. Despite the doctors identifying the case to be one of the Medico Legal Case (MLC), no F.I.R. was registered. It was only on 23.11.1991, the F.I.R. came to be registered by P.W.4 (the informant).

¶30

9. P.W.4 has stated in her testimony that while she was under treatment, the Police Officers came to the hospital and she lodged the

¶31

Page 5 of 15

¶32

F.I.R. getting it written by her son. At the same time, she has deposed that she has no idea about the contents of the F.I.R. Therefore, even the very existence of the F.I.R. lodged in a belated stage, creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution version.

¶33

10. In order to point out the false implication of the appellant in the present case, Ms. Samantaray, learned counsel for the appellant has taken me to the evidence of P.W.3, who has stated that there was a proposal of marriage between the daughter of P.W.4 and Sudhir Badatia, who is the brother of Bainath Badatia, the co-accused in this case. The said Bainath Badatia is a friend of the present appellant. Since the marriage could not be materialized for certain reason, the informant falsely implicated the accused persons. This version of P.W.3 found support from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 as well.

¶34

11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the present case, neither the weapon of offence has been seized nor the blood-stained cloth of the informant has been seized to substantiate the injury, if any.

¶35

12. On the contrary, Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent-State by

¶36

Page 6 of 15

¶37

strongly placing reliance on the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 4 submitted that the case of the prosecution has been based beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has very appropriately appreciated the evidence to form a conclusion that the present appellant is guilty of the offence under Sections 452/506/323 of the IPC.

¶38

13. I have carefully gone through the materials on record in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶39

14. Initially, the case was registered against the appellant and one Bainath Badatia and Sankarsan Roula. Though the appellant was apprehended, but the other two accused persons stated to have been absconded. Hence, their case was split up and the trial against the present appellant alone was conducted.

¶40

15. Perusal of the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution reveals that the incident had taken place on 13.11.1991. On the very next day, P.W.4 was admitted to the hospital. One Dr. Rajesh Sahu attended P.W.4. From the statement of Dr. Rajesh Sahu recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C., it appears that P.W.4 has stated

¶41

Page 7 of 15

¶42

before him that she had received the injury since she had fallen on the rough surface.

¶43

16. The bed head ticket exhibited through P.W.1 found mention of Medico Legal Case (MLC). Needless to say that it was obligatory on the part of the doctor or the treating hospital that once the Medico Legal Case comes to the notice of the doctor, he should have reported the same to the police. However, nothing is coming to the fore on the record as to why the F.I.R. was not registered despite identifying the case to be a Medico Legal Case. P.W.1 is also a doctor, who has treated P.W.4 on 14.11.1991. He has stated in his cross-examination that the hospital reported the matter to the police on the same day. Even after such report, no case was registered. P.W.1 further stated that on 23.11.1991, the Investigating Officer of the case sent a requisition for the medical examination of the patient. By that time, the patient was already being treated from 14.11.1991.

¶44

17. It appears from the record that since the F.I.R. was registered only on 23.11.1991, the requisition was sent by the police to the doctor without realizing that the patient has already been treated by that time. P.W.1 further stated that P.W.4 has sustained one abrasion

¶45

Page 8 of 15

¶46

1” x 1” over the middle third of left forearm with dried blood over the abrasion. On X-ray of the left forearm, it was found that, there was a fracture of radius and ulna in lower heart. He also opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and was caused by hard and blunt

¶47

weapon.

¶48

18. P.W.4 in his testimony has stated as under:-

¶49

“At that time, accused Bainath, Rajeswar Rao and Sankarsan entered inside my house. When I questioned them as to why they were entering into my house, they abused me in obscene language saying “GANDIMARAI GUD SATEI BIACHHUDDI BIARS BADI MAIDEVI” etc. When I asked them as to why they were abusing us unnecessarily, accused Bainath caught hold of my hair, Sankar caught hold of me from my backside and accused Rajeswar dealt several blows with an iron rod, as a result I sustained fracture on my left hand. Now this hand has become defective during the said assault.” (Not clear)

¶50

19. She has further stated in her evidence that while she was being treated as an Indoor patient, the Police Officer came and lodged the F.I.R. by getting it scribed through her son. She has stated that she could not read the report, but put her signature. In the crossexamination, she further deposed that there was a marriage proposal between Sudhir and her daughter, but it could not be materialized. Sudhir happens to be a common friend of the accused persons.

¶51

Page 9 of 15

¶52

20. P.W.5 is the daughter of P.W.4. She has supported the larger part of the version of P.W.4. She has admitted the factum of the marriage proposal between her and Sudhir. She has also stated that the marriage could not be materialized. P.W.6 is the son of P.W.4, who has also supported the prosecution case.

¶53

21. From the conjoint reading of all the evidence, it could be gathered that the incident had taken place on 13.11.1991 in the evening. The present appellant has dealt several blows by a stick while the other two accused persons had caught hold of P.W.4. There is enmity angle projected by the defence in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses regarding the failure of the marriage between P.W.5 and one Sudhir, who happened to be the close friend of the accused persons.

¶54

22. The important aspect of the matter which needs to be deliberated upon is regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is no doubt that the incident had taken place on 13.11.1991 at about 6 P.M. P.W.4 was admitted to the hospital on the next day, i.e., on 14.11.1991. From the bed head ticket and other evidence, it is apparent that the case was identified as Medico Legal Case and it was

¶55

Page 10 of 15

¶56

informed to the police. Despite that, the F.I.R. was not registered up till 23.11.1991. This delay in registration of the F.I.R. has not been explained by the Investigating Officer of the case.

¶57

23. Reading of the testimony of the Investigating Officer, P.W.3 of

¶58

the case would reveal that he has not well-explained the delay in registration of the F.I.R. In the cross-examination, the I.O., P.W.3 has stated as under:

¶59

“I examined Saraswati Behera on 24.11.91. The occurrence was on 13.11.91.The informant explained the delay by saying that she and her husband consulted other family members and well wishers before lodging the report and that the accused persons threatened to kill her, when she was admitted in the hospital. There was a marriage proposal between the daughter of Saraswati and Sudhir Badtia, who happens to be the friend of eldest son of Saraswati, but that marriage could not be materialized. I did not obtain any caste certificate of the informant. It is not a fact that I did not examine any person of the neighbours. In fact I examined some of them but their statements were not helpful, so I did not cite them as witnesses. The son of the informant brought the report to B.N.Pur P.S. and after going through the report, I could know that the informant is lying in the hospital. The written report says that Sivasankar Behera scribed that report on the instruction of the informant.”

¶60

24. The Investigating Officer has not explained as to why the case

¶61

was not registered despite the hospital and the doctor, who treated P.W.4, identified the case to be one of the Medico Legal Case and informed the police at the right time. No other evidence has been

¶62

Page 11 of 15

¶63

adduced by the prosecution to explain such delay in registration of the F.I.R.

¶64

25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) vs. State of U.P. , reported in (1994) 5 SCC 188 , while dealing with the aspect of delay in registration of the F.I.R. held as follows:

¶65

“ 12. FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf. The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence

¶66

Page 12 of 15

¶67

to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR. In our opinion, on account of the infirmities as noticed above, the FIR has lost its value and authenticity and it appears to us that the same has been ante-timed and had not been recorded till the inquest proceedings were over at the spot by PW 8.”

¶68

26. In view of the evidence borne on record regarding the enmity

¶69

between the accused and the informant, the delay of ten days in registration of the F.I.R. is in fact, an embellishment, as such, creates a doubt and strengthen the defence plea that the case is an afterthought. Even though P.W.4, the injured’s testimony found to be corroborating with the testimony of the eye witness, who is the daughter of P.W.4, but the fact that admission on the part of P.W.5 that her marriage was fixed with Sudhir son of the co-accused strengthen the plea of the defence regarding the afterthought version of the prosecution, particularly once it is established that despite the doctor informing the police that it is a Medico Legal Case, no case was registered.

¶70

Page 13 of 15

¶71

Further, P.W.4 has stated that she narrated the incident to his son, P.W.6, who scribed the F.I.R. and lodged the same with the police, but on cross-examination, P.W.4 herself admitted that she has no clue regarding the contents of the F.I.R. That further creates a doubt regarding the prosecution version and strengthens the plea of the defence regarding the false implication due to the past enmity.

¶72

27. If the entire evidence is read in toto coupled with the fact that the F.I.R. was registered hopelessly at a belated stage, the prosecution story riddles with doubt and suspicion. Therefore, it is imperative that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant.

¶73

28. In that view of the matter, the reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court while convicting the appellant may not sustain because the defence could create a serious doubt on the entire prosecution version. Even if a small hint of doubt is found from the prosecution evidence, the advantage of the said doubt is always tilted in favour of the accused.

¶74

29. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.1999

¶75

Page 14 of 15

¶76

passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in G.R Case No.1022 of 1991 is set-aside.

¶77

30. In the result, the appellant is acquitted and the bail bond stands

¶78

discharged.

¶79

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶80

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 18^th Day of November, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty

¶81

Signature Not Verified

¶82

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 25-Nov-2025 12:32:04

¶83

Page 15 of 15

K.Rajeswar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rajeswar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuna Das Vs State

Sambhu Kumar Vs State

Maheswar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Naidu Vs State

Kalia @ Mrutunjaya Vs State

Smt.Appala Narasamma Vs State