MANORANJAN SARKAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of appellate judgment of conviction of the Petitioner under Section 394 I.P.C. and sentence recorded thereunder by the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur on 15.04.1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1998.

(2.) THE Petitioner was engaged as a temporary driver in the truck bearing Registration No. ORY -1770. The informant's elder brother is the owner of the truck, but the informant was looking after the management of affairs of the said truck. On 14.08.1992 the truck ferried iron rods from Rourkela to Kabisuryanagar. At Kabisuryanagar the informant (P.W.1) received hire charge of Rs.3, 230/ - for the trip. He kept that amount in a small bag inside the cabin of the trick.In the truck the informant (P.W.1), Petitioner and one Helper of the truck set in their journey for Ichhapur. On the way near village Konishi seeing a bridge they stopped the truck on the N.H. 5 for their daily constitutionals. They left the truck for easing themselves. The Petitioner returned to the truck at first followed by the informant (P.W.1). The informant (P.W.1) found the money kept in the bag missing. He confronted the Petitioner about the matter and attempted to check his pockets. The Petitioner gave punches to the informant (P.W.1) and bringing out a long screw?driver from the vehicle, threatened to assault him. The informant (P.W.1) out of fear raised shout. Four to five persons working in the nearby fields rushed to the spot. Seeing them, the Petitioner ran through the fields' on the western side of the spot. Seeing the Petitioner running away from the spot, the informant (P.W.1) shouted "Dhara Dhara" (Catch hold, catch hold). At that time two police personnels (P.Ws.3 and 4) happened to pass by that road. Before them the informant (P.W.1) narrated about the incident. They (P.Ws.3 and 4)with the help of the persons working in the fields, caught hold of the Petitioner and recovered from him the stolen money.

(3.) THE Petitioner in his defence took the plea of denial and further pleaded that as he refused to work as a Driver under the informant (P.W.1) and demanded his back wages, the informant has cooked up a false case against him.