SUKUMAR JENA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been convicted under S. 395, IPC and each is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

(2.) The prosecution case, shortly stated, is as follows :- The informant Satyanarayan Panigrahi (P.W. 1) has his parents and three brothers namely, Laxminarayan, Braja Narayan and Purna Chandra and all of them were residing in a house with their family members in village Uluda, the spot, map of which is Ex. 13. On 3-6-1988, the marriage of Niharika, daughter of Laxminarayan took place and in connection with that marriage many close relatives of the informant had assembled. In the mid-night of 6/7-6-1986, while the informant was sleeping on the outer verandah of his house along with some other male members and the other family members and their relatives were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, one of the culprits poked the body of the informant by the end of a lathi for which he woke up and found to his surprise that five culprits being variously armed, each holding a bag and torchlight had surrounded him. At the instance of the culprits when he raised his hands, they tied down both his hands and also the hands of those who were sleeping with him and as instructed by them, when the informant called out the names of Dolagovinda and Kedarnath who were sleeping in the entrance room, they opened the door. Therelafter, the culprits took all of them to the room where the parents of the informant were sleeping and then they went into different bed-rooms and collected valuables and gold ornaments by breaking open almirahs and boxes. They also collected wearing golden ornaments from the women folk and also a radio. When the well clock struck I am. one of the culprits directed the others to finish the operation immediately and thereafter all the culprits went outside his house carrying the booty collected and threatening the inmates not to disclose the incident to anybody. When the informant went outside the house he found that two other culprits who were guarding the house joined the other culprits and all the culprits then left the place. On the next day morning at about 8-30 a.m. P.W. 1 went to Bhogral Police station covering a distance of about, 30 K. M. and lodged the first information report, Ext. l. In course of investigation, the police seized from the house of the informant one guarantee card of a portable Philips Transistor as per Ext. 4 and also various other articles including seven lantherns and barring the guarantee card, the seized articles were left in zima of the informant, as per Ext. 2. On 22-6-1986, the Police officer of Pataspur Police station in the district of Modinapur seized various articles from the house of the appellant Manmath Maity in connection with their P.S. Case No. 6 dated 22-6-1986 and out of those articles, one two-band Philips radio was made over to the officer-in-charge of Bhograi Police station who seized the same, as per Ext. 1l, in connection with this case. The police also seized one cotton print saree, one blouse and one broken jeep light from the house of accused Jharana Das alias Maity in village Argora of Modinapur district, as per Ext. 10/1. Some gold ornaments and one torchlight were also seized from the house of the appellant Karunakar Behera at the instance of the appellant Subal Bhakta on 20-7-1986 as per Ext. 9/1. Arrangements were made for holding of test identification parades in respect of the suspects as well as the suspected seized stolen articles and after completion of investigation, one charge-sheet was submitted on 21-9-1986 not only against the appellants but also against the accused Jharana Maity and another charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Karunakar Behera. On the basis of those charge-sheets, two Sessions Cases i.e., Sessions Trial Nos. 22 of 1987 and 28 of 1987 were started but since both the cases arose out of same Bhograi P.S. Case No. 68 of 1986, they were clubbed and heard together. In those sessions cases the appellants and the other two accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Ss. 395 and 412, IPC.

(3.) The defence was one of denial.