STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SANATAN MAHALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 12th February, 1988 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhadrak acquitting the respondent of the charge under Sections 395 and 457 of I.P.C. and Section 9B(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act in S.T. No.21/8 of 1985/1987 is impugned.

(2.) IT is alleged that the present respondent along with seven others forcibly entered into the house of p.w.1 committing lurking house trespass in the mid -night of 11.10.83 and committed dacoity. Out of the eight accused persons, three faced trial in S.T. No. 26/109 of 1984 and were convicted. Against the said order of conviction, Criminal Appeal Nos.26 and 79 of 1985 were preferred by the respective convicts. The said Criminal Appeals were dismissed by this Court by a common judgment passed today and the order of conviction and sentence has been maintained. The present respondent having absconded, he faced the split up trial in S.T. No.21/8 of 1985/1987.

(3.) MR . Dhal, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand forcefully submitted that the Court below has discussed the evidence, both oral and documentary, in extenso and the conclusions arrived at are not only based on cogent evidence but also otherwise just and proper, Mr. Dhal also submitted that the occurrence took place as long back as in the year 1983. The respondent was acquitted in the year 1988. More than 15 years have passed in the meanwhile and at this belated stage, the order of acquittal should not be interfered with. To appreciate the arguments advanced by both the sides, I scrutinised the evidence in detail. It appears that though the accused was identified in T.I. parade, there are enough materials which indicate that he had been shorn to the witnesses earlier. Thus his identification in the T.I. Parade loses its importance. The only ground on which the learned State Counsel pressed the charges against the respondent is the extra -judicial confession said to have been made by the respondent before p.w.3. But then the evidence of p.w.3 is shaky. The evidence of the said witness has not been corroborated by any other witness. The confession of the accused in presence of p.w.4 according the learned counsel for the respondent, has no legal entity and is inadmissible in evidence. The evidence that the accused confessed before the villagers that he had committed dacoity cannot be accepted without any corroborative evidence. No materials were seized from the present respondent, while some ornaments and other valuables were seized from his co -accused. The learned Court below has vividly discussed the evidence. After going through the materials on record, I also find no reason to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the Court below. The judgment does not suffer from non -consideration of any material evidence. I do not find any error in the judgment apparent on the face of the record. As stated earlier, the occurrence took place almost more than twenty years back and the order of acquittal was passed fifteen years back. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal, which according to me is also just and in consonance with the evidence both oral and documentary.