STATE OF ORISSA Vs. ARJAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State Government against the judgment of acquittal dated 16 -7 -1979 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial No. 2/5 of 1979.

(2.) THE facts may be briefly stated. During the night between 7th and 8th February, 1978 a dacoity was committed in the house of P.W. 3 In course of the dacoity P.W. 3 was injured and gold ornaments were removed from the person of P.W. 4, wife of P.W. 3 and cash of about Rs. 1970/ - was also stolen. On hearing hulla of the inmates of P.W. 3's house, some villagers including P.W. 2 came to the spot, but the miscreants decamped with the booty after exploding some crackers to keep the villagers away. On the following morning (8 -2 -1978) P.W. 3 lodged F.I.R. at the police station with P.W. 12, the Officer -in -charge, Ext. 1 is the F.I.R. A case under Section 395, I.P.C. was registered against seven unknown persons and P.W. 12 started investigation. Later in the day the present Respondent and the other five accused persons were detained on suspicion by the villagers of Kusumati near Retang colony Constable P.W. 5 and Sub Inspector P.W. 14 of Jatm Police Station came to the spot and arrested the Respondent and the other accused persons. All of them were taken to Jatni Police Station. The Respondent was reached by P.W. 14 and it was found that he had hidden M.O. V, five golden Khasus, and M.O. VI, four golden Khasus, in his under -garment. These golden ornaments were seized, and in the test -identification parade conducted by P.W. 11 on 8 -5 -1978 both P.Ws. 3 and 4 identified M.Os. V and VI as belonging to them. After completion of investigation charge -sheet was submitted against the Respondent and the remaining five accused persons. All of them were charged under Section 395, I.P.C. and put on trial.

(3.) LAW is settled that a judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with unless the assessment of evidence and conclusion drawn by the trial court are unreasonable. Reversal of a judgment of acquittal will not be justified' merely on the ground that the appellate court's view on the evidence on record is different from that of the trial court. See Chowdikodlu Asuralli Dayavappa and Anr. v. State of Mysore : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1533, Kanbi Purshottam Ladha v. State of Gujarat : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1758, Hasan Ahmad Mai Isha and Ors. v. State of Gujarat : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 437 and Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 638.