Orissa High Court
Atish Behera And Two Ors. vs State Of Orissa on 20 July, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996CRILJ270
Author: A. Pasayat
Bench: A. Pasayat
JUDGMENT A. Pasayat, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction of three appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'), who faced trial for allegedly having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "PC") on the accusation that they attempted to take away the life of informant who was the then Principal of Bhadrak College. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak found that the accused persons were guilty of offence punishable under Section 323, I.P.C, and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for three months, but extended the benefit of Prohibition of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short, the 'Probation Act') placing them under the probation of District Probation Officer for a period of two years on furnishing bonds of Rs. 2000/- each to keep peace and be of good behaviour.
2. Prosecution version is unfolded during trial shows the sad state society is passing through. At this juncture it is to be noted that each of the accused persons at the relevant point of time claimed to be a student, but their activities described by the prosecution are not expectable from a student.
On 17-5-1986 around 11 a.m. the informant was returning to his Government residence by a scooter. Suddenly the accused persons obstructed him and he slowed down the speed of scooter, accused Atish dealt several blows by means of a Bahunga, while accused Pravakar and Paresh dealt blunt fist blows on his face. As a result of the assaults, the informant fell down on the road raising hue and cry. This attracted notice of several other persons nearby. The informant was immediately given medical treatment. First information report was lodged by him and investigation was undertaken, and on completion thereof charge-sheet was submitted.
3. In order to establish its accusations against the accused persons, prosecution examined ten witnesses. Apart from the informant who was examined as PW1, PWs 2,4 and 5 were stated to be eye-witnesses. But during trial the said PWs. 2,4 and 5 resiled from their statements made during investigation, and pleaded complete ignorance of the alleged occurrence, and took, a somewhat interesting stand. They stated that because of students' union activities under political pressure the informant bore grudge against this and that is how they have been falsely implicated.
4. Test identification parade was conducted and all the three accused-appellants were identified. Since no direct or indirect act was attributed to accused Lalatenda Pal, he was acquitted. The learned trial Judge held that the indiscriminate assaults ruled out a case under Section 307, I.P.C, but held that the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence punishable under Section 323, I.P.C, were present, and therefore, each of the accused was convicted and sentenced as indicated above.
5. It is pleaded in support of the appeal that the case of the accused being of false implication due to political rivalry, the evidence of informant should have been discarded and acquittal should have been directed. Mr. N. Prusty, learned Counsel for State on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and sentence.
6. Students indiscipline has reached its zenith. More all the three accused claimed to be students, and one of them a functionary of the college union. Interestingly he was not a student of the college of which the informant was the Principal. One of the other two (accused Person), as evident from record was rusticated from the college for his obnoxious behaviour inside the college. Evidence on record shows that though not a student of the college where the informant was the Principal, accused Atish was visiting the college and was carrying on activities which the informant did not approve of and, therefore, on some previous occasions had warned him. So far as accused Paresh is concerned, it is also seen that he had been issued compulsory transfer certificate. Where false implication on the ground of hostility is pleaded, it has to be borne in mind that it is really double edged weapon. While it can be the basis for false implication, it can also provide foundation for the crime. The evidence of P.W. 1 has been elaborately and deeply scrutinised by the learned trial Judge, and no infirmity in the reasoning could be shown to me to warrant a different view than what has been taken by. the learned trial Judge.
7. It is submitted that there is no apparent motive for the crime. Law is settled that in a criminal case even if prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the accused in committing crime, yet conviction can be made if the evidence is unimpeachable in nature connecting the accused as the author of the alleged crime. Motiveless or mindless crimes are not common. Absence of motive does not corrode credibility of prosecution case. Heinous offences have been committed from vary slight motive. The absence of proof of motive has this effect only, that other evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused has to be closely examined, but where the positive against accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance. Where direct evidence is worthy of credence, the question of motive is of academic importance only. Motive is a fact which is only within the knowledge of the person doing the act and which no human being but the party himself can divine. Therefore, failure to discover the motive for an offence does not signify its non-existence, and failure to produce evidence does not fatally affect it. It is not the sine qua non for the success of prosecution. In any event, in the case at hand evidence exists to show that accused Atish and Paresh had been pulled up in the past,, for their obnoxious behaviour, by the informant. That could provide the motive.
8. I find no merit in this appeal. The accused-appellants have been rather liberally dealt with. They did not deserve any sympathy that has been shown to them by the learned trial Judge. Such misplaced sympathy encourages indiscipline which is found in abundance in the society today, and unless delinquents like the accused are dealt with iron hands, there is likelihood of others getting encouraged to do similar acts, with the confidence that they shall be dealt with liberally. The accused persons claiming to be students had assaulted their teacher. A teacher has a great role in shaping the life of a student. As Henry Adams had said in "The Education of Henry Adams", a teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops. Assault on a teacher is assault on the conscious of the society. It deserves severest treatment. Since the State has not chosen to assail the order of grant of probation, I do not find it fit to issue any notice of enhancement, because of passage of time of a decade in the mean time. With the hope that the accused-appellants have reformed themselves for which they were granted probation, I dismiss the appeal.