SUKHCHAND ADHIKARI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS jail criminal appeal has been preferred by the convict challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned C.J.M. -Cum -Assistant Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in S.T. Case no.39 of 2002. By the impugned judgment the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 398 of IPC and Section 9(B)(3)(A) of the Explosive Act and sentence to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/ - in default to undergo R.I. for one year and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with payment of fine of Rs.1,000/ - with default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months respectively. The substantive sentences as per the order are to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that on 03.02.2002 night when informant and his family members were asleep, it was around 2 O'clock in the mid night they heard some one knocking their door and asking for a liter of petrol for his vehicle. Hearing the same P.W.3 the wife of the informant woke up and opened the door. Then to their surprise they found four young persons standing in front of the door, whereas two others were standing at a little distance on the road. P.W. 3 then handed over a bottle of petrol to them and asked for the payment. At that time it is said that two of them caught of her hand and suddenly another placed a pistol on her mouth insisting to handover cash and valuables with her. P.W. 3 managed to raise hullah for which her husband (P.W.2) and two sons woke up and came out -side. Seeing but P.W. 2 and his sons started chasing them. In the process some bombs were thrown by the miscreants but those did not explode. One was then nabbed and brought near the house of P.W.2 when by then other neighbors assembled. The culprit then gave his identify disclosing his name and address. He was taken to a filed in the village and kept under guard but still he could manage to escape. So early morning the matter was reported in writing at the P.S. for which the case was registered and investigation commenced. One completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and another placing them to be tried in the court of law for the above offences. In course of investigation the appellant and another were apprehended, unexploded bombs were seized from the house of P.W. 2 which were then defused and sanction has also been accorded by the District Administration. Although six persons were shown as accused, four others were found to be absconders and case against them having been split up, the appellant and another only faced the trial at the first round..

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court having not properly appreciated the evidence let in by the prosecution has arrived at the conclusion finding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 398 of IPC and under Section 9 (b)(3)(a) of Explosive Act. It is also his submission that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are highly contradictory to each other and those contradictions are not reconcilable. Therefore, he submits that the prosecution evidence on proper scrutiny cannot be accepted to fasten the criminal liability upon the appellant by holding his complicity in the said incident.