SIDHA DEHURY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these five criminal appeals, arising out of the same judgement and order, to be governed by this common judgement, the order convicting each of the appellants under Section 395 read with Section 397 of Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years is based on the solitary testimony of Shivlal Agrawala (PW 1), a resident of village Karadi in the district of Phulbani, in whose house the five appellants along with others, being armed with deadly weapons, such as, iron rods, lathis and gun, had, it was alleged committed dacoity at about midnight on the 13th day of June, 1977, in the course of which they removed ornaments, cash and other valuable properties causing injuries to Shivlal Agrawala (PW 1), his wife Kamini Agrawala (PW 2) and two neighbours, namely, Nilamani Behera (PW 3) and Parakhit Sahu (PW 4) besides others.

(2.) ON the basis of a telephonic message from Mr. Natabar Pradhan (PW 23), then a Minister of Cabinet rank of Orissa who had been informed about the commission of dacoity by a Marwari young gentleman, the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police (PW 21), attached to Boudh Police Station, made a station diary entry (Ext. 14) and investigation was taken up first by the officer -in -charge (PW 16) and later by the Circle Inspector of Police (PW 22), who, on the completion of investigation, placed a charge -sheet against the appellants and Goura Chandra Baghar whose gun had allegedly been used during the commission of the crime. In the course of investigation, the appellants had been put to identification in a test identification, parade conducted by the Special Judicial Magistrate (PW 7) on 12.7.1977. There had been seizures of gold ornaments (M.Os. I and II) and melted gold pieces to connect the appellants Sidha Dehury, Suramani Behera and Panu alias Pranabandhu Panigrahi with the looting of properties. Steps had been taken for examination and treatment of the injured persons. The gun (M.O. VII) belonging to the co -accused Goura Chandra Baghar who stood charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act for unauthorisedly making over the gun to the appellant Pranabandhu for using it in the commission of the offence of dacoity and was acquitted of that charge, had been examined by the Ballistic Expert (PW 19). After the charge -sheet was placed and appellants were committed, they stood charged under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Penal Code.

(3.) THE learned Advocate appearing as the amicus curiae for the other appellants have urged that in view of the improbabilities and infirmities in the evidence of PW 1 with regard to the identification of the appellants and the criticism of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the bonafides of the investigating agency with regard to the test identification proceedings, it was not a fit case to record a conviction on the sole testimony of PW 1. The learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, submitted that the evidence of PW 1 was not open to any doubt and could be the sole basis for the conviction of the appellants.