JUDGMENT
A.K. Parichha, J.
1. This is on appeal by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondents recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chhatrapur in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1985.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the injured P.W. 6 and the respondent-accused persons were inimical to each other and number of litigations were going on between them. The accused persons had also threatened P.W. 6 and his family members with dire consequences. In such background, on 23-4-1983 at about 3.00 p.m. while P.W. 6 was coming with P.W. 5 on a bicycle from village Hatiota to Polasara, the accused persons armed with deadly weapons obstructed them at a place called ‘Kolamabadalanala’ and while the accused persons namely, Banshi, Klrtana, Kati Sahu and Ramesh obstructed P.Ws. 5 and 6, accused Madhusudan Sahu and Kalu Charan Sahu dealt Kati (sword) blows on the left leg of P.W. 6, as a result of which his leg was severed from the body. It is also alleged that accused Debendra Panigrahi removed a cash of Rs. 1250/- from the pocket of P.W. 6. Seeing this murderous attack on P.W. 6. P.W. 5 fled away from the: spot leaving his cycle and informed P.W. 4, who happens to be the grandson of P.W. 6. P.W. 4 immediately arranged an ambulance to bring P.W. 6 from the spot and lodged an F.I.R. in Purusottampur Police Station, in the meantime, P.W. 6 was shifted from the spot by a rickshaw, but after meeting the ambulance on the way he was taken in the ambulance to Polasara P.H.C. where he was given first aid and then referred to M.K.C.G. Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur. Basing on the F.I.R. Investigation was done and charge-sheet was placed under Sections 143, 307/379. IPC.
3. The accused persons took the plea of complete denial and false implication due to previous enmity.
4. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1 is a seizure witness, who spoke about the seizure of blood-stained earth from the soot, P.W. 2 is the rickshaw puller who carried the injured in his rickshaw for medical treatment, P.W. 3 is the doctor, who gave first aid at Polosara P.H.C. to the injured, P.W. 4 is the informant P.W. 5 is the eye-witness who was carrying P.W. 6 on the carrier of his bicycle, P.W. 6 is the injured, P.Ws. 7 and 8 are the investigating officers, P.W. 9 is the doctor who examined and treated the injured at M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital. Besides oral evidence, the prosecution also proved the documents, which were marked as Exts. 1 to 11. The blood stained chappals, blood stained dhoti and blood stained sample earth were marked as M.Os. I, II & III respectively.
The accused persons did not examine any witness, but produced two documents, which were marked as Exts. A & B.
After perusing the oral and documentary evidence, learned Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence Is riddled with contradictions, omissions and inherent improbabilities. He accordingly recorded an order of acquittal, which is under challenge in this appeal.
5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Gov ernment Advocate appearing for the State appellant contends that the trial Court not only failed to appreciate the evidence on record but also omitted to follow the settled principles of law regarding admissibility of the documentary evidences. According to him, the evidence of the eye-witnesses, post occurrence witnesses coupled with the medical evidence clearly establish that the accused persons after forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons attacked P.W. 6 in order to do away with his life. He specifically argues that minor contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses are never fatal to the case of the prosecution and as such, the conclusion of the trial Court that the evidence of the P.Ws. are unacceptable because of contradiction is unsustainable. In support of this contentions, he cites the case of P. Venkataswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2003) 25 OCR 186 : 2003 Cri LJ 837 (SC).
6. Mr. Biswanath Rath, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and Mr. S. Senapati, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, on the other hand, supporting the impugned Judgment submit that the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 5 and 6 and that of the post occurrence witness P.W. 2 being contradictory to each other and the circumstances narrated by them as well as the informant being himself improbable, the trial Court had no scope of believing the prosecution allegation. According to them, the prosecution evidence in no way establishes any of the charges and therefore, the order of acquittal is Just and proper.
7. At the outset, it will be profitable to indicate that enmity and litigating terms between the parties are admitted. The accused persons also never disputed about the injuries on the person of P.W. 6. Therefore, the evidence on these aspects require no discussion. The only aspect on which evidence and legal position require analysis is whether the accused persons inflicted the above stated injuries on P.W. 6 in furtherance of their common object to cause death to P.W. 6. In this regard, the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 6 is relevant. P.W. 6 is the injured. He stated that on 24-4-1983 at about 3.00 p.m. while at village Hatiota, he found P.W. 5 going on his cycle towards Polasara and asked for a lift and when both of them were coming on the cycle, accused Ramesh, Banshi, Pravakar and Kabi came from the sugar cane field and obstructed their way and accused Debendra Panigrahl and Madhu Sahu who also came from the sugar cane field dragged him from the cycle, as a result of which he fell down on the ground. He stated that Debendra Panigrahi put his foot on his chest, Kirtan caught hold of both his shoulders and Madhu dealt one blow with Khanda, Kati to his left leg above the ankle joint causing bleeding injury. Then accused Debendra asked Kalia to deal kati blow and sever the leg and accordingly, Kalia dealt one kati blow, as a result of which the left leg was completely severed from his body. He also alleged that Debendra removed Rs. 1250/- from his pocket. Ramesh took away a bunch of pages from his diary and Kirtan took away his clothing, which were inside the bag. He stated that he tied a towel around his left leg to stop bleeding, but when that towel was drenched with blood, he tied one dhoti to stop bleeding. He said that he was removed from the spot in the rickshaw by one Banchha Behera and Suma Behera and the amputated limb was also brought in that rickshaw. According to him, on the way, they met the Ambulance, which was being brought from Polasara Hospital and in that Ambulance, he was brought to Polasara Hospital. He claimed that the doctors of Polasara Hospital gave first aid and referred him to M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital for better treatment and he reached the M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur at 4.00 p.m. where he was admitted and treated for two months.
8. P.W. 5 in his evidence stated that while he and P.W. 6 were coming on the cycle, suddenly accused Banshi, Kirtana, Kati Sahu and Ramesh obstructed them and thereafter, Madhu Sahu, and Kalia Sahu dealt kati blow on P.W. 6, who was lying on the ground, as a result of which, the left leg of P.W. 6 was completely severed from his body. He stated that out of fear, he left the spot and informed P.W. 4. This witness did not state anything about the presence of Debendra Panigrahi at the spot or the commission of any act by him. He also did not state about the removal of any article or cash by any of the accused persons.
9. P.W. 4 stated that at about 4.30 p.m., P.W. 5 told him that while he was carrying P.W. 6, accused Banshi, Kirtana, Kati Sahu and Ramesh obstructed his cycle and Madhu Sahu and Kalia Sahu cut the left leg of P.W. 6. On getting this information, he went to Polasara hospital, arranged an ambulance and while coming to the spot in that ambulance, he saw P.W. 6 being carried on a rickshaw near village Chadhiapada and brought him to the hospital by ambulance. This witness proved the F.I.R. as Ext. 2. Although P.W. 4 is not an eye-witness, he has given description about the scene of occurrence in the F.I.R. which he heard from P.W. 5. The said narration is not in full agreement with the statement of P.W. 5. P.W. 2 is the rickshaw puller who lifted P.W. 6 from the spot. According him, while going to Hatiota with some passengers in his rickshaw, he found P.W. 6 rubbing some Gudakhu on his feet near the bridge and after some time while returning from Polasara, he found the leg of P.W. 6 lying near that bridge after being severed from his body. He stated that on being requested he carried the injured Dandapani towards the hospital at Polasara, but on the way they met the ambulance and the injured was taken to the hospital in that ambulance. This witness does not state about the presence of any other person at the spot, though it is the case of the prosecution that Banchha Behera and Suma Behera were there and they accompanied the rickshaw. P.W. 2 specifically stated that he did not find any cycle on the spot, though it is claimed by P.Ws. 5 and 6 that P.W. 5 left the cycle at the spot and fled away. The narration of P.W. 2 is, thus, totally inconsistent with the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 and the prosecution allegation.
10. The I.O. who recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses clarified that P.Ws. 5 and 6 never spoke clearly about the presence of Debendra Panigrahi at the spot or his participation in the incident.
11. From the evidence of the above noted witnesses, it can be seen that each of them described the scene of occurrence in a different manner. The only consistent statement coming from P.Ws. 5 & 6 is about the Kati blow given by Madhu and Kalia. But that aspect also does not find proper support from the evidence of the post occurrence witnesses and the statements made by P.Ws. 5 and 6 before the I.O. That being so, the trial Court was justified in observing that the statement of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and contradictory.
12. Though it is the settled position of law that minor contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and there is absolutely no quarrel over the ratio laid down in the case of P. Venkataswarlu (supra) cited by the learned Stale Counsel, but when the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses are glaring in nature and go to the root of the allegations made in the F.I.R. such contradictions cannot be ignored and the same would form a stumbling hurdle in the path of the prosecution.
13. It is to be borne in mind that the parties involved in the case are inimical to each other and large number of litigations are going on between them. While the accused persons propagate the plea that be cause of this enmity, they have been falsely implicated, the prosecution has come up with the suggestion that the attack on P.W. 6 was carried because of the enmity. Enmity between the parties is a double edged weapon. The effect of enmity is to be considered in the case according to the circum stance and evidence available on record. What is settled is that once enmity exists between the parties, the evidence adduced by the parties are to be scrutinized with great care and caution and every mitigating circumstance has to be given importance. See (2004) 27 OCR 899 (SC) Biharinath Goswamy v. Shiv Kumar Singh (2004) 27 OCR 462 : 2004 Cri LJ 646 Bhargavan v. State of Kerala. Once the contradictions in the statements of the P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are considered in the light of the above noted legal principle, one cannot ignore the glar ing contradictions which are available in the statement of the P.Ws. When some doubt arises about the truth of the allegations, particularly in a case where the parties are in strong inimical terms, obviously benefit of the doubt would go to the accused per sons. The trial Court in its lengthy judgment has analysed each and every piece of evidence available on record and his reasonings cannot be considered unreasonable or contrary to the evidence and settled principles of law. Considering the glaring contradictions, omissions and improbabilities in the evidence and conduct of the injured and witnesses, the trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution allegation and has extended the benefit of doubt to the accused respondents. After re-analysing the evidence and circumstances carefully, I do not find any reason to differ from the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. Therefore, I find no good reason to upset the judgment of the trial Court.
14. In the result, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is confirmed and the Government Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.