State vs Pitabas Dakua

Heard argument. Perused the evidence on record and the impugned Judgment.

The fact as noted in the impugned judgment and not disputed by the accused is that Ananda Dakua, the deceased and Pitabas Dakua, the accused are agnatic brothers. It reveals from the postmortem report, Ext.2 that age of the deceased was 80 years. It appears from the impugned judgment of the Trial Court that accused was a young man of 23 years. P.W.1, Babuli Dakua, P.W.2 Murali Dakua are two brothers out of five sons of the deceased, P.W.3, Bishnupriya Barik is the wife of P.W.2, P.W.4 Srinivas Pradhan is a co-villagers of the parties. P.W.1 is the informant. P. Ws. 1 to 5 are the eye- witnesses, examined in the case. The occurrence took place on 11.06.1986 at about 1 P.M. After occurrence accused and the deceased remained under the treatment of Doctor Gourachandra Biswal (P.W.6) and in support thereof the injury certificates have been marked as Ext-4 and Ext-D. The injury certificate of accused's father has been marked Ext-A.

According to the case of the prosecution, the conduct of accused in singing song in the neighboring Sahi (Khadala Sahi) was not appreciated by P.W. 1 and the deceased. The altercation between the two on that issue according to the allegations of P.W. No. 1 resulted in death of his father when injuries are inflicted by husband of the accused by M.O.I. In that context, the contention of the accused in the FIR, Ext-D, so also defence plea suggested to the prosecution witnesses is that he was manhandled and brutally beaten by the deceased and his sons that he was rescued and taken to his house, that members of prosecution party came for further assault and injured his father and therefore to protect his father and himself the accused snatched away the axe from the hands of P.W. No. 2 and moved it around (brandished) so as to disperse the informant party and in that process the deceased sustained injuries. The Trial Court appreciated the evidence and took note of the aforesaid defence plea and accepted the same to be the probable acts of assault and injury both on the deceased as well as the accused and his father. Accordingly, granting advantage of the plea of right of private defence to persons, the Court below acquitted the accused persons. We also find that the prosecution has not explained the injury on the accused and his father. On the other hand, PWs. 1, 2 and 3 have asserted that accused did not receive any injury. After going through the evidence on record and hearing the contention of Learned Standing Counsel and testing the finding recorded by Trial Court, we are satisfied that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the Learned Sessions Judge in taking a reasonable view in favour of the accused.

Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal and the Government Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Govt. appeal dismissed