DHRUBA CHARAN LENKA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Stood Charged Under Section 395 Of The Penal Code With Having Committed Dacoity Along With Seven Others During The Night Of 23rd/24th June, 1977, In The House Of Jogi Sahu (Pw 3) At Village Jhanjalia During The Commission Of Which Cash Of Rs. 15,000/ - And Gold And Silver Ornaments Had Allegedly Been Removed By The Culprits Causing Injuries To Pw 3 And Three Co -Villagers, Namely, Panchu Sahu, Pahali Sahu And Dharmu Mallik. On The Basis Of The First Information Report (Ext.1) Lodged By Pw 3 Before The Officer -In -Charge Of The Gop Police Station (Pw 14), Who Had Come To The Hospital Where Pw 3 Had Been Receiving Treatment, On Hearing A Rumour That A Dacoity Had Been Committed, Investigation Proceeded And On Its Completion, Charge -Sheet Was Placed. The Other Culprits Are Said To Be Absconding. To Bring Home The Charge To The Appellant, The Prosecution Had Examined Fourteen Witnesses. Of Them, Pw 3 Was The Victim And The Sole Witness To The Occurrence. Pws 1 And 5 Had Been Examined To Establish That Prior To The Occurrence, The Appellant, Who Had Been Working With Them In The Orissa Textile Foundry, Had Left At About 3 P.M. On The 23rd June, 1977. Pws 2, 7 And 13 Had Been Examined To Show The Suspicious Movements Of The Appellant Along With Some Others Prior And Subsequent To The Occurrence. Pw 12 Was The Doctor Who Had Examined Pw 3 And The Other Three Injured Persons. Pw 14 Had Investigated Into The Case. The Appellant's Plea Was One Of False Implication. He Had Not Examined Any Witness On His Behalf. On A Consideration Of The Evidence, The Trial Court Found That The Charge Had Been Established And The Appellant Was Sentenced To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For A Period Of Ten Years.

(2.) MR . Dash, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution to establish the charge against the appellant was not worthy of credence and the evidence of PW 3 was untrue and untrustworthy. Mr. Indrajit Ray has supported the order of conviction as being well -founded on the evidence of PW 3 and the other evidence of a circumstantial nature. It has, however, been submitted by the learned counsel for both the sides that the question as to whether the order of conviction would be maintained by this Court would depend on the acceptance of the evidence of PW 3. If the evidence of PW 3 is accepted, it has been submitted, the other circumstances could give some assurance to the testimony of PW 3. If on the other hand, the evidence of PW 3 is discarded by this Court, the order of conviction cannot be sustained.

(3.) AS earlier indicated, PW 3 was the sole witness to the occurrence. Not even his wife who was said to be present on the scene had been examined by the prosecution. The three co -villagers who had sustained injuries had not been examined either. No doubt, PW 3 had implicated the appellant as one of the culprits in the first information report, but it is to be kept in mind that this report was lodged on the day following at 4 p.m. at the hospital when the officer -in -charge came to that place. It was not in the evidence of PW 3 nor was there any evidence to show that PW 3 had implicated the appellant as one of the culprits either before his wife or before his relations and co -villagers prior to his going to the hospital. On his own showing, he had not disclosed the name of the appellant as one of the culprits before he lodged the first information report. The belated statement made by him naming the appellant as one of the culprits would seriously affect his evidence especially because of complete absence of evidence to show that before he had been taken to the hospital, he had disclosed before anyone that the appellant was one of the culprits,