STATE Vs. MAKUND HARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State challenges the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Ses -sions Judge, Bolangir -Kalahandi, hold -ing the respondents to be not guilty of the charges under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. by discarding the case of the prosecution that while after night fall on March 3, 1976, Padmini Naikani (P.W.8) along with her daughter Sukanti (P.W.8) and her son -in -law Deba (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), were returning to their village after arranging a buffalo cart being driven by Chiran Patra (PW 7) and escorted by Brundaban Majhi (P.W.6), the three respondents, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked them and one of them, namely, Makuuda Harijan, assaulted the deceased by means of an axe which resulted in his death and all of them removed orna -ments and other articles from the pos -session of the victims. On the first in -formation report (Ext.13) being lodged by Brundaban Majhi (P.W.6), investigation commenced and on its comple -tion the three respondents were prosecuted. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined eighteen witnes -ses. The respondents had pleaded not guilty to the charges and their plea was that a false case had been foisted against them. They had not examined any witness on their behalf. On a conside -ration of the evidence, the learned Judge acquitted them of the charges under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., but convicted Makund Hari -jan under Section 411 of the I.P.C. for being in possession of a gold ornament (M.O. III), which had been stolen from the person of Padmini Naikani (P.W.9) at the time of the occurrence and sen -tenced him thereunder to undergo rigo -rous imprisonment for a period of 3 years. We have been told that no appeal has been preferred by the respondent No.1 against the order of conviction recorded against him in respect of that offence. As the respondent No.1 could not be traced out in the address furnished by the State in spite of several attempts and the other two respondents had been in custody, this Court, by order No.13, dated June 26, 1982, dismissed the ap -peal as against the respondent No.1.

(2.) WHILE Mr. A. Rath, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, has chal -lenged the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge as unreasonable, Mr. S.S. Basu has submitted that for cogent reasons, the evidence of identi -fication of P.Ws.6 to 9 in respect of the respondents has been discarded by the trial Court and there is no other evidence to connect them with the com -mission of any of the offences.

(3.) IT admits of no doubt from the evidence that the death of the deceased who was homicidal in nature. The evidence of P.Ws.6 to 9 does establish that a robbery had been committed. The im -portant question for consideration is as to whether the respondents Nos.2 and 3 were the authors of the crimes.