LAXMIDHAR ROUT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner along with five others were tried in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack, and were charged under Section 395 , Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that one Sarat Kumar Lal (P.W. 2) is a business man of Cuttack Malgodown. On 2 -6 -1975 at about 9.00 p.m. Sarat Kumar Lal along with his clerk Shyamsundar Sharma (P.W. 6) was going in a rickshaw with a cash of Rs. 16,000/ - kept in a bag. While they were near the N.C.C. office of Revenshaw College two persons suddenly stopped the rickshaw. Out of the two culprits one assaulted Sarat Kumar Lal by means of a bottle on his left hand and snatched away the bag containing Rs. 16,000/ - along with two Bank Drafts. P.Ws. 2 and 6 chased the culprits, but the culprits got into an Ambassador car and escaped. Thereafter F.I.R. was lodged in Mangalabag police -station and the police after investigation submitted charge -sheet against the accused persons. In order to prove the case prosecution examined twelve witnesses. None was examined on behalf of the defence. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge basing on the identification of the Petitioner and accused Subal Lenka in Court by P.Ws. 2 and 6, convicted them under Section 392, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for two months. He, however, acquitted the other accused persons. Against their conviction and sentence the Petitioner and Subal Lenka filed separate appeals and the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, who heard the appeals, dismissed the same. Now the Petitioner has come up in revision against the order of his conviction and sentence.

(2.) MR . Dalai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the only evidence against the Petitioner is that he was identified in Court during trial. There is no other evidence, direct or circumstantial to connect the Petitioner with the crime. He relied on a decision reported in State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C. Sukla and Anr. : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1382, and submitted that the value of identification of a person for the first time in Court is valueless. In this case admittedly no T.I. parade of the culprits has been conducted. It is not known why no steps for identification of the culprits was taken. Except the identification of the Petitioner in Court, no other evidence whatsoever is there against him. Both the Courts below have relied only on the identification of the Petitioner in Court.