KHAGENDRA GAHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who stood trial along with other persons, being charged under Section 395 of the I.P.C. with having committed dacoity in the house of Satrughna Sahu of village Biridisasan in the district of Balasore during the night of 12th/13th Mar. 1975, in the course of commission of which cash, ornaments and many other articles were removed from the possession of the victim, stands convicted thereunder and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. There were in all eleven accused persons in the case of whom the appellant and eight others stood charged under Section 395 of the I.P.C. and two others, namely, Gayadhar Sahu and Shyam alias Hunda Jena stood charged under Section 412 of the I.P.C. All the accused persons except the appellant were acquitted of the charges.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution was that during the night of the 12th/13th Mar. 1975, the appellant and others committed dacoity in the house of Satrugtma Sahu (P.W. 2) and removed cash, ornaments and other properties. On the basis of the first information report (Ext. 1) lodged by P.W. 2, the Officer -in -Charge (P.W. 12) of the Simulia Police Station, took up investigation in the course of which witnesses were examined, the appellant and the other accused persons were arrested and some properties removed during the commission of dacoity were seized. Steps had been taken for the identification of some of the suspects at a test identification parade. One of the culprits, namely, Purusottam Pati (P.W. 1) turned to be an approver. Including him, the prosecution had examined fifteen witnesses to bring home the charges. Neither the appellant nor any of the other accused persons had examined any witness in defence.

(3.) MISS P. Leela, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the evidence on record would not warrant a conviction of the appellant against whom the evidence of the approver could not be accepted and the materials on record did not show that M. Os. I and II, identified by P.W. 2 as belonging to him, had been recovered from the possession of the appellant. The learned Additional Standing Counsel has, however. submitted that the appellant had properly been convicted.