THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.271 of 1995 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) (1) Saran Panjar Bhoi (2) Sarat Kumar Bhoi (3) Sridhar Bhoi (4) Sara Bagarty (5) Judhistir Bhoi (6) Gokul Bhoi (7) Biswajit Bhoi (8) Kuna @ Ananda Bhoi (9) Sananda Bhoi (10) Ajit Kumar Bhoi (11) Sajit Kumar Bhoi ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 12.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 17.03.2026 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.09.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. No.269 of 1994, whereby the learned trial Court convicted them for the offences under Sections 147/148/324 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and on that count, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 148/149 of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offences under Sections 324/149 of I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 147 of I.P.C. 2. The present appeal has been pending since 1995. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the appellants. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, learned counsel. 3. Heard Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. During pendency of the present appeal, it has been reported that the appellant No.5- Judhistir Bhoi and the appellant No.6-Gokul Bhoi have expired. Therefore, vide order dated 10.07.2025, the appeal qua the deceased-appellant Nos.5 and 6 stood abated in absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. moved by her legal heirs or next friend. Accordingly, consideration of the present appeal is confined to the other surviving appellants. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Gurucharan Banchhor, lodged the F.I.R. alleging that one Fakir Banchhor had a flower garden situated at Ghasiapada under village Pardhiapali. On 19.07.1993, the cows belonging to accused Biswa Bhoi allegedly entered the said garden and damaged some of the flower plants, which led to a quarrel between Srikar Banchhor and Biswa Bhoi, during which Biswa is stated to have assaulted Srikar. Page 4 of 22 Thereafter, Kujari Naik deposited a sum of Rs.11/- with the Ward Member of village Pardhiapali for convening a village meeting to resolve the dispute relating to the damage caused to the flower garden and the alleged assault on Srikar Banchhor. Accordingly, a meeting was fixed to be held on the evening of 20.07.1993. It is further alleged that on 20.07.1993 at about 5:30 P.M., all the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly and being armed with deadly weapons such as lathis, tangi, iron rod and gupti, came together to Ghasiapada (Pardhiapali) and shouted slogans threatening to eliminate the Ghasias. Some of the accused persons allegedly entered the house of Dasarath Banchhor (P.W.2) and forcibly dragged him out. Accused Panjara Bhoi is alleged to have first dealt a blow with a tangi on the head of Dasarath Banchhor, but the latter caught hold of the tangi, as a result of which he sustained an injury on his hand. When Panjara attempted to inflict a second blow, Fakira Banchhor (P.W.9) caught hold of the tangi and warded off the blow, thereby saving Dasarath. It is further alleged that accused Panjara thereafter snatched a lathi from one of his associates and assaulted Dasarath Banchhor, causing a fracture to his hand. The other accused persons also allegedly assaulted Dasarath by means of rods and lathis, causing multiple injuries. The prosecution further alleges that Bikal Banchhor (P.W.5), who came to the rescue of Dasarath, was also assaulted by the accused persons. Accused Sara Bagarty allegedly assaulted Ramesh Banchhor (P.W.7) by means of a gupti, causing a bleeding injury. Accused Kunu and others allegedly dragged Ajodhya Banchhor (P.W.8) and assaulted him. Sudarsan Banchhor (P.W.6) and several other residents of Pardhiapali belonging to the Ghasia community also sustained injuries in the said assault. It is stated that the informant, after witnessing the occurrence and being frightened by the incident, left the spot and reported the matter to the Officer-in-Charge of Ainthapali Police Station, based on which Ainthapali P.S. Case No.100 of 1993 was registered and investigation was taken up. During investigation, the Investigating Officer sent the injured persons for medical examination and seized one tangi, two lathis, one wooden lathi and one iron rod on production by Dingar Banchhor (P.W.11). The Investigating Officer arrested all the accused persons except accused Saran Panjar Bhoi, who subsequently appeared before the Court. After completion of investigation and receipt of the injury reports from the Doctor, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 452, 307, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution witnesses Urmila Banchhor (P.W.3), Dasarath Banchhor (P.W.2), Sudarsan Banchhor (P.W.6), Ramesh Banchhor (P.W.7), Ajodhya Banchhor and Bikal Banchhor (P.W.5) are stated to have sustained injuries in the said occurrence. It has also come on record that some of the accused persons, namely Sarat Bhoi (appellant No.2), Sridhar Bhoi (appellant No.3), Saran Panjar Bhoi (appellant No.1), Gokul Bhoi (appellant No.6) and Sujit Bhoi (appellant No.11), had also sustained injuries during the incident. 6. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses. Among them, P.W.4 was the Medical Officer, who examined the injured persons and proved the medical reports, and P.W.12 was the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation of the case. The remaining witnesses were residents of village Pardhiapali, including the injured witnesses, who have deposed regarding the occurrence. The prosecution has also proved the relevant documentary evidence, including the F.I.R., seizure list, medical reports and the spot map prepared during investigation. The tangi, which was alleged to have been used as the weapon of offence by accused Saran Panjar Bhoi, has been marked as Material Object-I (M.O.I). It is the prosecution case that the said tangi was snatched from the hand of accused Saran Panjar Bhoi by Fakir Banchhor and kept in his house, which was subsequently seized by the Investigating Officer on production by Dingar Banchhor, the father of Fakir Banchhor. In defence, the accused persons have examined two witnesses. D.W.1 was the Ward Member of village Pardhiapali, and D.W.2 was the Medical Officer, who examined the injured accused persons on police requisition and issued the injury certificates, which have been marked as Exts. A to E. 7. In the present case, twelve accused persons stood charged for the offences alleged to have committed by them under Sections 147, 148, 294, 452, 307, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned trial Court rightly acquitted the appellants of the charges under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by arriving at the following conclusion: “28. As regards the charge u/s.3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it can be concluded that the accused persons have not committed any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against either the person or property on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the accused persons cannot be found guilty u/s. 3(2) (v) of the S.C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The point of legal conviction against the accused persons having been affirmatively answered in respect of the penal offences u/ss. 147, 148 and 324 read with 149 I.P.C., it is needless to record an independent conviction under any of the minor penal sections of the Special Act which is punishable with R.I. for six months only, whereas the offence u/s.324 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for three years or fine or both; It is also unnecessary to record any conviction against the accused persons u/s.323 read with 149 I.P.C.in view of their conviction u/s. 324 read with 149 I.P.C.” 8. Learned counsel for the State has fairly submitted that against the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court either for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act or for the offence under Sections 294/452/307 of I.P.C., no appeal has been preferred. Therefore, this Court need not venture into analysing the evidence to ascertain as to whether the offences are made out or not. Moreover, the reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court as reproduced above is the right reasoning as has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Sahu vrs. State of Chhattisgarh1, has held as under: - “10. In the said judgment, this Court dealt with a case involving offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is pari materia as the same also provides that the offence must be committed upon a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with the intention that it was being done on the ground of caste.” Relying upon the aforementioned judgment and by analysing the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, this Court concurs with the findings of the learned trial Court in the aforesaid aspects. 9. Coming to the offences for which the appellants have been convicted, I have analysed the evidence of the injured witnesses. In the present case, P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the injured witnesses. P.W.2 has made specific allegation against the appellant Nos.1 and 8 whereas P.Ws. 3 and 5 have attributed the overt act against the appellant No.1 only. P.W.6 has taken the name of the appellant Nos.3 and 6. P.W.7 deposed that the appellant No.4 has given a gupti blow 1 S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 6367 of 2023 to his head. Similarly, P.W.8 deposed that the appellant No.11 has given a blow by a wooden batten to his head, besides that the appellant No.10 gave an iron-rod blow to his head, and the appellant No.9 has given a lathi blow to his back. 10. From the evidence of all the injured witnesses, a conclusion could be safely drawn that none of the injured witnesses have attributed any overt act to appellant Nos.2, 5 and 7. P.W.4 was the doctor, who examined the injured persons. He has found that P.Ws.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have although received multiple injuries but all the injuries were simple in nature. However, in so far as the injury sustained by P.W.2 (Dasarathi Banchhor) is concerned, the doctor (P.W.4) did not give any opinion rather reserved the opinion pending further opinion of a specialist. Exts.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were the injury reports exhibited by P.W.4. The said witness was subjected to intensive and extensive cross-examination by the defence, but no dent could be created in his testimony. It is an important aspect seen from the record that the accused persons in the instant case have also sustained various injuries. When this aspect was put to the eyewitnesses, they have completely denied that the accused persons have even sustained any injuries. P.W.2 in his cross-examination has deposed that “I have not noticed any injury on the person of accused Panjara, at the time of occurrence. I saw him for the first time about 10 to 15 days after the incident in the village. I also did not notice any injury on his person then. The accused persons have not instituted any case against me and my caste men on the allegation that we assaulted them on the date and time of occurrence.” Similarly, P.W.5, another injured witness in his cross- examination has deposed that “I cannot say if the accused persons came to our Para to call the Ghasias to attend the meeting. It is not a fact that just prior to the occurrence we all were heavily drunk. It is not a fact that when the accused persons called us to attend the meeting we attacked them with lethal weapons and caused injuries on their person. It is not a fact that I was armed with tangi and assaulted the accused Panjar, Sajit, Sarat, Sridhar and Gokul. It is not a fact that we have assaulted the accused persons causing injuries on their person. I cannot say if the accused persons have instituted a case against me and other persons alleging that we assaulted them”. P.W.8 also in the cross-examination has deposed that “it is not a fact that we assaulted the accused persons when they came to our place to call to go to the place of meeting. I have not heard the exact words uttered by the accused persons while coming near the house of Dasarath. Accused Panjar, Sajit, Sarat, Sridhar and Gokul had not sustained any injury during the occurrence. I cannot say if any case has been instituted against me and others concerning this occurrence. I have been released on bail in a case soon after this incident. I cannot say if other accused persons assaulted me after I fell down senseless.” 11. From the evidence of the injured eyewitnesses, it is very clear that all of them in unison have stated that the accused persons have not sustained any injuries in the incident. On the contrast, when the I.O. of the case i.e. P.W.12 was put to a question by the Court, he stated as under:- “To Court:- I could not ascertain from the P.Ws. as to how the accused persons sustained the injuries during the occurrence. Prior to this case I had also investigated case and counter cases. Although I was aware of the fact that P.Ws. not explaining the injuries sustained by the accused persons during the occurrence would amount to material suppression, I did not mention those facts in the C.D. as the said episode is likely to go against the prosecution.” The I.O. (P.W.12) has clearly admitted that the accused persons have sustained injuries and stated that the prosecution witnesses have materially supressed those facts. To further substantiate their case, the defence led their independent witnesses, namely, D.W.1 and D.W.2. D.W.1 was the Ward Member of the village, who deposed that there was a quarrel between both the groups in the village concerning the damage to a flower garden and both sides have attacked each other. D.W.2 was a doctor, who was posted as the Assistant Surgeon attached to the District Headquarter Hospital, Sambalpur. He deposed that on the police requisition, he examined Sarana Panjar (appellant No.1), Sarat Bhoi (appellant No.2), Sridhar Bhoi (appellant No.3), Gokul Bhoi (appellant No.6) and Sajit Bhoi (appellant No.11). He pointed out that different injuries have been sustained by the aforementioned accused persons. For the purpose of better appreciation, the injuries sustained by each of the accused persons as deposed by D.W.2 and Exts.A to E are mentioned hereinabove:- “On 20.7.93, I was working as the Asst. Surgeon attached to the District Headquarters Hospital, Sambalpur. That day at 10.02 P.M., I examined injured Sarat Bhoi on police requisition and found the following injury on his person:- i) Abrasion 3" x 1/2" on the middle of the left arm obliquely situated. Page 14 of 22 The injury is simple in nature and might have been caused by blunt weapon. The duration of the injury would be within 6 hours. Ext. A is the medical certificate. Ext. A/1 is my signature and Ext. A/2 is the police requisition. 2. Same day at 9.40 P.M., I examined Sridhar Bhoi on police requisition and found the following injuries on his person:- i) Lacerated injury 2" x 1" x 1/3" over the right tempro- parietal area (Injury was bleeding). ii) Abrasion 1/3" x 1/4" over the lateral part of right clavicle. Both the injuries are simple in nature. Injury No.(i) might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon whereas injury No.(ii) might have been caused by blunt weapon. The duration of both the injuries would be within 4 to 6 hours. Ext. B is my certificate, Ext. B/1 is my signature and Ext. B/2 is the police requisition. 3. On the same day at 9.30 P.M. I examined injured Sarana Panjar Bhoi on police requisition and found the following injuries on his person:- i) Lacerated injury 5" x 1/3" x 1/4" present over the right fronto parietal area (bleeding). ii) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" x 1/3" over the left frontal area. Injury No. (ii) is simple in nature. Opinion in respect of injury no. (i) is reserved pending radiological examination of the injured at the V.S.S. Medical College Hospital, Burla. Both the injuries might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon and their duration shall be within 4 to 6 hours. Ext. C is the medical certificate, Ext. C/1 is my signature and Ext. C/2 is the police requisition, 4. Same day at 10.45 P.M., I examined the injured Gokul Bhoi on police requisition and found the following injuries on his person:- i) Abrasion 2" x 1/2" over the lower part of the right side of neck with clot. ii) Incised injury 1/2" x 1/3" x 1/3" over the tip of right shoulder. iii) Incised injury 2/3" x 1/3" x 1/3" over the left shoulder 2" medial to tip of left shoulder. iv) Abrasion 1/3" x 1/4" on the left side forehead (bleeding). v) Lacerated injury 3" x 2" over the left tempro-parietal area (bleeding). Page 15 of 22 All the injuries are simple in nature and their duration shall be within 4 to 6 hours. Injury Nos. (i), (iv) and (v) might have been caused by blunt weapon whereas the other two injuries might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. Ext. D is my certificate, Ext. D/1 is my signature and Ext. D/2 is the police requisition. 5. Same day at 10.15 P.M. I examined injured Sajit Bhoi on police requisition and found the following injury on his person:- i) Lacerated injury 4" x 1/2" x 1/3" over the left tempro- parietal area. The injury might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon and its duration shall be within 4 to 6 hours. Opinion regarding injury reserved pending examination by the Specialist in Surgery. The Surgery Specialist opined after examination that the injury is simple in nature. Ext. E is my certificate, Ext. E/1 is my signature and Ext.E/2 is the police requisition.” 12. It is clear from the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.12) and the defence witness (D.W.2) that the Investigating Officer knew the fact that the accused persons have sustained injuries. He himself requisition for examining the accused persons by D.W.2, the doctor posted in D.H.H., Sambalpur. D.W.2 has found various injuries being sustained by the accused persons. The prosecutor has examined the said defence witness in extenso only to elucidate the fact that the accused persons were seriously injured in the occurrence that has taken place. On the contrast to the evidence of P.W.12 and the defence evidence, all the injured witnesses either have supressed the material fact that as to how the accused persons have sustained injuries or trying to camouflage by saying something contrary to the evidence of the I.O. and defence witness. Two of the witnesses have very categorically stated in the cross-examination that none of the accused persons have sustained any injury. In the light of the aforementioned evidence, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujurat vrs. Bai Fatima and another reported in (1975) 2 SCC 7 assumes importance to be relied upon. Paragraph-17 of the said judgment reads as under for convenience of ready reference:- “17. In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow: (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self-defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all.” 13. The factual matrix of the present case falls under the second exception as mentioned in paragraph-17 of the judgment of Bai Fatima (supra). Apart from that this Court in the matter of Manguli Bhal and Others Vs. State of Orissa2 has held that if the accused persons have sustained injury in the same incident/occurrence and the prosecution witnesses tried to supress that the accused have indeed sustained injuries in the same incident, such suppression being material suppression, undermines the trustworthiness of the prosecution witnesses, bringing it under the cloud of doubt. This Court in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 in the judgment of Manguli Bhal (supra) has held as under:- “13. On careful consideration of the materials on record and the submissions advanced, this Court finds that the prosecution's case suffers from a vital infirmity namely, the failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons during the same occurrence. The record reveals that the accused Kalia sustained injuries in course of the incident, which the prosecution has not even attempted to explain. The prosecution witnesses have either denied knowledge of such injuries or offered vague and evasive statements, which cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 has categorically held that nonexplanation of injuries found on the accused by the prosecution assumes significant importance, especially in cases where the defence version competes in probability with that of the prosecution and the evidence comes from interested or inimical witnesses. The failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation for the injuries found on the accused, when the same could have been reasonably explained, indicates that the 2 (2026) 101 OCR 820 prosecution has not come with clean hands, and the evidence presented cannot be wholly relied upon. The Hon’ble Court held thus- “The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State prosecution case. of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima (supra) there may be cases where the nonexplanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises.” 15. The proposition is not that every non-explained injury vitiates the prosecution, but where such omission is coupled with interested testimony and suppression of material facts, it becomes fatal. As observed in Krushna v. State of Orissa, reported in (1992) 5 OCR 529, which relies upon and reaffirms the aforementioned decision, the Court cautioned against relying on witnesses who deny seeing injuries on the accused, despite their visible nature, as such conduct undermines their credibility and neutrality. The Court held thus- “Added to it, we find that the accused Kalia had sustained an injury. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition that wherever there is an injury on an accused which is explained, the prosecution case is bound to fail. Where there is failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused, it may show that the evidence related to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. This view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Mohar Rai and Bharat Rai v. The State of Bihar: AIR 1963 SC 1281. Non-explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution affects the prosecution. (See Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar: AIR 1976 SC 2263). Such non-explanation assumes greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witness or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Where, however, the evidence is clear, cogent and credit-worthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from false-hood, the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the whole case. Much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. (See Vijayee Singh and others v. State of U.P.: 1990 (11) Crimes 584). Where it is shown that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has not presented a true version, the prosecution case becomes vulnerable. Non-explanation of the injuries may not affect the prosecution case as a whole, but the defence can contend on the basis of nonexplanation of injuries found on the accused that the accused could have had a right of privets defence or at any rate a reasonable doubt arises in this regard.” 14. On the analysis of the entire conspectus of the case on facts and the law germinating from the evidence on record, it leads to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt which has been created in the testimony of the injured eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Besides that, the contradictions pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants, which lead to the inherent improbabilities and infirmity appearing in the prosecution story is sterling. The story narrated in the F.I.R. (Ext.1) having been completely given a go-by in the evidence of the informant (P.W.1), as regarding, the manner of assault creates a serious doubt. The injuries sustained by P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as has been deposed by the doctor (P.W.4) also lacking corroboration with their own version. For example, P.W.4, (the doctor) and Ext.5 (injury report) reveals that, the injury sustained by P.W.2 was lacerated injury over the left fronto parietal, one bruises over the distal aspect of right forehand and other bruises over the frontal aspect of lower right thigh. As per the opinion of the doctor, the lacerated injury is caused by a sharp cutting weapon and bruises by blunt weapon. P.W.2 in his evidence is silent about the thigh injury and has given different names at different times about the person who has assaulted on his hand. While in his examination-in-chief, he attributes the injury to appellants (Biswa and Kunu). However, in the cross-examination, he stated that Sarat and Kunu have assaulted him. Similar contradictions which are apparent on record could also be found from the evidence of other injured witnesses if compared with the evidence of the doctor (P.W.4) and the corresponding injury report. I need not embark upon each and every argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the contradiction in the evidence of the eye witnesses; rather, I confine to the only aspect that the prosecution witnesses have deliberately either supressed the materials aspects to the extent that the appellants have sustained injuries in the same occurrence or tried to completely deny that the appellants have received any injuries at all. 15. For the reason stated above, precedents cited and on the basis of the analysis of evidence, this Court concludes that the evidence of the eyewitnesses seriously comes under the cloud of doubt. Hence, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, by extending the benefit of doubt, the appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The judgment and order dated 26.09.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. No.269 of 1994 is set aside. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants stand discharged. Page 22 of 22 16. Accordingly, the CRA is allowed and disposed of. 17. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Sibesh Pattnaik, learned Amicus Curiae in this case. Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as a token of appreciation. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 17th of March, 2026/ Swarna