State of Orissa vs Tankadhara Naik alias Tanei Naik

Heard argument from both the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows.

Accused/Respondent was charged for the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. with the allegation of patricide. According to the case of the prosecution, on 24.09.1989 in the mid-day time when deceased/father did not entertain the demand of the accused/son to part with a portion of paddy harvested from the landed property, that the accused/son inflicted injuries by means of a ''Farsha'' and caused death of his father. The incident was reported in the Police Station by the Grama Rakhi (P.W. 1) and law was set into motion. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (P.W. 13) collected direct evidence of eye-witnesses, circumstantial evidence on extra judicial confession and also recovery of the weapon of offence u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and on the basis of the Post-mortem Report-Ext. 4 that the deceased suffered homicidal death, he submitted charge sheet for the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. He also seized bloodstain and sample earth and the wearing apparels besides the nail clippings of the accused and requisition for examination by the State Forensic Science and Laboratory, both for chemical analysis and serological test. Report from the S.F.S.L. has been marked Ext. 12. Accused took the plea of denial before the Trial Court. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Out of them, both eye-witnesses and the witnesses to the extra judicial confession and one of the two witnesses to the seizure u/s 27 of the Evidence Act did not support the prosecution.

They were subjected to leading questions by the prosecution; but except confronting the earlier statement u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. nothing more was done by the prosecution so as to prove the charge against the accused nor any answer extracted during the cross-examination. In view of such state of affairs of evidence, notwithstanding the reports Exts. 1 and 12 regarding tallying of the blood groups of the weapon of offence and the deceased and the evidence of P.W. 7 regarding leading to discovery, Learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal on 11.02.1993 pronounced the order of acquittal in favour of the accused in S.T. No. 29-D of 1990. 3. After hearing argument of Learned Addl. Standing Counsel at length and perusing the evidence in detail, we find that the findings recorded by the Trial Court does not suffer from illegality or perversity. When a reasoned view possible from the evidence has been adopted by the Trial Court for granting the benefit to the accused, we do not find any reason to interfere with that order of acquittal on the basis of meager evidence available from the side of the prosecution regarding proof of recovery u/s 27 of the Evidence Act read with Exts. 11 and 12.

For the reasons indicated above, there is no merit in this Government Appeal and the same is dismissed.

Govt. Appeal dismissed.