I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. Case called out. No one is present for the appellant. However, Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the appellant had filed written argument which is available on record. Perused the same and heard Shri K.N. Jena, learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1988 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhadrak in I.C.C. No. 393 of 1987 acquitting the respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed complaint case in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak with the allegation that the respondent had enmity with the appellant due to the reason that the appellant had given a statement in a G.R. case before the police against the respondent. On 5.9.1987 at about 7.00 O' clock in the morning while the appellant/complainant was going on the public road, the accused/ respondent due to previous enmity caught hold of his neck and asked him as to why he had given a statement against him before the police in the G.R. case bearing No. 146 of 1987. Thereafter respondent gave fist blows on the back and chest of the complainant and caused injuries and pain on his person. However, the complainant was saved at the intervention of the witnesses who were present there. He got himself medically examined and filed a complaint on 7.9.1987. During the course of trial the appellant produced five witnesses including himself who was examined as P.W. 1. P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 namely, Jaganath Prasad Mohanty, Sagarnath and Apurba Kumar Panigrahi were the eye-witnesses. P.W. 5-Dr. Amarnath Chand had examined the appellant on 5.9.1987 at about 12.30 P.M. in his private clinic. The trial Court found contradictions in the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4 P.W. 1, the complainant has supported the contents of the complaint that the accused-respondent assaulted him by means of fist blows and slaps on his left chest and right scapula and right waist as a result of which he sustained pain. In cross-examination he has stated that there was no exchange of hot words between him and the accused prior to the occurrence and also after the occurrence and he sustained four injuries on his person. The accused gave him only four fist blows and did not give any slap. P.W. 2 in his cross-examination has stated that there was no exchange of hot words between the complainant and the accused prior to the assault on the complainant. He has further stated that he had seen holding of the neck of the complainant by the accused while he was inside his bari whereafter he had gone to the spot. He has further stated that he was a witness against the accused-respondent in G.R. Case No. 146/87. He has also told that P.W. 4 Apurba Kumar Panigrahi reached at the spot after his arrival. But Apurba Kumar Panigrahi, P.W. 4 stated in his examination-in-chief that he saw that the accused and the complainant were quarrelling with each other and, therefore, P.W. 4 told the complainant and accused not to quarrel and left the place. In his cross-examination he has stated that he had only seen the exchange of hot words between the complainant and the accused which shows that P.W. 4 came after the arrival of P.W. 2 and he had not seen any incident except exchange of hot words. But, it cannot be presumed that exchange of hot words was continuing after the incident was over. P.W. 1, the complainant himself has said that there was no exchange of hot words between him and the accused. P.W. 3 Sagarnath has stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of incident he saw that the accused caught hold of the neck of the complainant and gave two fist blows. In cross-examination he has stated that his village is at a distance of half a mile from the place of occurrence, he had not intervened the matter, the complainant had sustained swelling injury on his neck and he had not seen any other injury on his person. According to his version, the entire occurrence continued for about ten minutes. All the above statements are contradictory and create a doubt as to whether the complainant had sustained any injury or not. However, P.W. 5, the doctor has stated in his statement that the complainant had sustained the following injuries on his person:
1. one oval shaped contusion 2 Cm x 1 cm diffuse in margin reddish in colour present obliquely on the rt side of the neck 3 cm away from the mid neck.
2. one Irregular contusion 4 cm x 3 cm diffuse in margin reddish in colour present on the rt side of the neck.
3. one irregular contusion 3 1/2cm x 3 cm diffuse in margin reddish in colour present on the rt mid scapular region.
4. one irregular contusion 3 cm x 2 1/2cm diffuse in margin reddish in colour present on the left chest 3 cm above the left nipple.
5. one irregular contusion 4 cm x 3 cm. diffuse in margin reddish in colour present on the rt loin.
4. Perusal of the injury report shows that it does not corroborate the oral evidence given by the eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4. The trial Court has mentioned in its impugned judgment and order that the silence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the nature and seat of injury on the person of P.W. 1 creates a doubt on the alleged occurrence.
5. Therefore, the trial Court did not find the accused-respondent guilty of the offence punishable Under Section 323 I.P.C. and as such acquitted him and set him at liberty. This Court has found no illegality and impropriety by which an inference may be drawn that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and the complainant was unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Therefore, the appeal has no force and is dismissed.