ANIRUDHA PATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conviction of the petitioner under Sec. 379, I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years imposed on him by the trial Court which are all upheld in appeal have been assailed in this revision.

(2.) The facts are simple in nature. The prosecution case is that on 23-2-1981 at twilight time while the victim lady Jyotsnamani Panda (P.W. 8) and her daughter Usharani Panda (P.W. 2) were easing on a river bank, the petitioner stealthily came from behind and snatched away the golden chain from the neck of P.W. 3 causing some bruises in that region. P.W. 8 caught hold of the napkin of the petitioner but the latter snatched away the same and took to his heels towards Barudisahi of their village. At that time P.W. 8 shouted to return the necklace naming the petitioner and on hearing such shout one Bukhishyam Panda (P.W. 3) who was also easing nearby focussed torch light and with the flash thereof he could recognise that a person like the petitioner was running away from the direction where P.W. 8 was standing. P.W. 2 could also identify the petitioner as the culprit. The petitioner was chased for apprehension up to certain distance, but the attempt proved abortive. Thereafter, P.Ws. 2 and 8 returned to their house and disclosed the incident to their other family members inasmuch as the husband of P.W. 8 Bansidhar Panda (P.W. 1) was not there in the village. Thereupon, the uncle of P.W. 1 (P.W. 6) went in search of the accused and finding him in the 'Akhadaghar' in Barudisahi of their village, brought him to the village Basti. When questioned by some villagers about the occurrence of theft, the petitioner admitted to have stolen the golden necklace from the neck of the P.W. 8 and promised to return the price thereof a couple of days later. In the same night P.W. 1 returned to his house and hearing everything from P. Ws. 2 and 8 went to Basingha Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. at about 3 a.m. Investigation followed in course of which P.W. 8 was medically examined by P.W. 7 and after completion of investigation the petitioner faced trial for having committed the offence under S. 379, I.P.C.

(3.) The defence was one of denial and it was pleaded by the petitioner during his examination under S. 313, Cr. P.C. that the case had been falsely started against him because his father was in litigating term with the father of P.W. 1. No witness was, however, examined in support of the defence plea.