AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Misc. Case No.93 of 2011
For the reasons stated, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the CRLLP is condoned.
CRLLP No.47 of 2011
The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22nd November, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.104/152 of 2006 acquitting the Opposite Parties of the offence punishable under Sections 148, 341, 452, 323, 294 read with 149 of IPC and additionally acquitting Opposite Parties 1 to 10 of the offence under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC while convicting respondent No. 12 Gauranga Barik of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
The case of the prosecution is that in order to save his mother Shantilata Barik (P.W.1) who was by all the accused, the deceased Akshya Barik intervened and was attacked then by the accused and succumbed to his injuries.
The prosecution was able to prove that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one, but was unable to bring home the charge of either unlawful assembly or rioting or use of obscene language or even of murder against Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 11. The trial Court found that the evidence only pointed to the guilt of Gauranga Barik (Opposite Party No. 12) who attacked the deceased with a crowbar on his head resulting in his death.
Having perused the evidence with assistance of the Counsel for the State, this Court finds that none of the witnesses were able to precisely attribute the role of each of the accused in attacking the deceased. There was in fact no evidence to show any trespass by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 11 in the house of P.W.1 or any plan to commit the offence of rioting or for that matter the murder of the deceased. The deceased appears to have intervened in a quarrel between P.W.1 and the rest and therefore, it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 11 harboured a design to commit the murder of the deceased. The deposition of the eye witnesses, who are obviously related to the deceased, was categorical only insofar as the accused Gauranga was concerned.
Having carefully examined the impugned judgment of the trial Court and the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State, the Court is not persuaded that the trial court has committed any error in its analysis of the evidence. The impugned judgment could not be said to suffer any legal infirmity warranting interference. No grounds have been made out for grant of leave to appeal.
Consequently, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The CRLLP is dismissed as such.
………………………………