SATRUGHANA ALIAS SATRUGHNA PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these revisions arise out of the prosecution of the petitioners along with another Dhruba Pallai in Sessions Trial No.3/146 of 1984/83 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri u/Ss. 457 and 395 IPC and hence are disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) It was the prosecution case that the petitioners along with the acquitted person and others, in all numbering twelve, committed dacoity in the night of 22-10-82 in the house of P.W. 8 breaking open the doors, entering into the house, assaulting the informant P.W.1 and other inmates and decamping with valuable properties. The uniform defence plea was one of denial. The learned Asst. Sessions Judge while acquitting accused Dhruba Pallai found the petitioners guilty u/Ss.395 and 457 IPC and convicted them under the first charge of R.I. for seven years each and under the second charge to R.I. for two years each with direction for the sentences to run concurrently. All the petitioners preferred appeals against their convictions and sentences. Satrughna Parida, the petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Revision No. 427/84 preferred Criminal Appeal No.97 of 1984, and Sudhir Kumar Swain, the petitioner No. 2 therein, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1984. The petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos.491/84 and 503/84 preferred Criminal Appeal No.100/84. The appeals having been transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Puri were re-numbered as Criminal Appeals 22/97 of 1984, 22/100 of 1984 and 24/103 of 1984. All the appeals were dismissed but the convictions u/S.395 IPC were modified as u/S.392/34 IPC with the sentences remaining unaltered.

(3.) Even though the prosecution led evidence not only of identification but also of recovery u / S. 27 of the Evidence Act of a gun, yet it is fairly conceded by the learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. S. K. Das that the evidence u/S. 27 of the Evidence Act is not credible and that the sole evidence against the petitioners is that of their identification.