BAIDHAR PATRA ALIAS MAKARA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants Baidhar Patra alias Makara and Madan Khatua, besides four other co -accused persons, namely, Suresh Chandra Das, Sarbeswar Panda, Mohan alias Subash Pradhan and Jaladhar Das alias Jena, stood charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed dacoity in the 203 Up running train in between Soro and Sabira Railway Stations at about 10. 30 P.M. on November 17,1981, in the course of which they were alleged to have used deadly weapons, kept the passengers including P. Ws. 1 to 5, 14 and 19 under awe and removed a number of articles from the possession of Jagadish Biswakarma (P. W. 19) who had been moving with his family members and also from other: persons and decamped when the train was about to stop at the Sabira Railway Station. With some money borrowed from Sk. Abdul Khalil (P. W. 18.), P. W. 19, one of the victims, returned to Kharagpur with his family members. Investigation was taken up by the Officer -in -Charge of the Government Railway Police Station (P. W. 20). The address of the main victim (P. W, 19) was ascertained in the course of investigation on March 22, 1982 and P. W. 20 examined P. W. 19 on May 12, 1982. Some articles removed during commission of dacoity had been recovered from the possession of the two appellants, as sought to be established by the prosecution. Of the twenty -one witnesses examined at the trial, there was the evidence of identification of the culprits by P. Ws. 1, 4, 5, 14 and 19. Recoveries of articles removed during the commission of dacoity had been testified by P. Ws. 16, 21 and the Investigating Officer (P. W. 20.) The plea of the appellants and the co -accused persons was one of denial. They had not examined any witness in their defence.

(2.) ON a consideration of the evidence, the learned trial Judge did not place implicit reliance on the testimony of P. Ws. 4 and 5 and as has been submitted at the Bar, none of these two witnesses had identified any of the suspects at the test identificttion Parade. It admits of no doubt from the evidence that a dacoity had been committed in the running train by more than five persons. Mr. Dhal, the learned counsel for the appellants, has invited my attention to the suspicious features in the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 14 and 19 and has submitted that their evidence of identification did not deserve credence and ought not to have been accepted. The learned Additional Standing Counsel has supported the of conviction as well -founded on the evidence on record.

(3.) COMING next to the evidence of identification of the appellant Baidhar by P.W. 14, it would be noticed that this appellant was not known to P. W. 14 from before. In his evidence in the court recorded more than one and a half years after the occurrence, i.e., on July 19, 1983, he had identified this appellant in the court although be had not identified him at any Test Identification Parade. There was no evidence that this witness had disclosed to any one the identifying features of any culprit whom he could identify. The evidence of P. W. 14 in this regard did not deserve credence.