P KRISHNA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arising out of the same judgment and order of conviction recorded by Mr. A.C. Das. Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack, holding each of the appellants to be guilty of the charge of dacoity punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment.

(2.) The appellants, it was alleged had committed dacoity in the house of P W. 1 during the night of May 17/18, 1980 and had removed cash and other articles by keeping the inmates of the house including P W. I under, awe and after tying P.W.1. On the basis of the First Information Report (Ext. 6) lodged by P.W.I, investigation had been taken up but no clue could be obtained until the last par of July, 1980. Thereafter, on receiving some clues, the investigating agency arrested the appellants and on the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was placed against them. The prosecution had examined thirteen witnesses to bring home the charge. The plea of the appellants was that they had falsely been involved in the crime.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 1981 Jail Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 1981 and Mr. Das, appearing for the appellants in the other Jail Criminal Appeals having been appointed by this Court, who has argued with considerable earnestness and zeal, have challenged the order of conviction as unfounded on the basis of the highly unreliable evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence with regard to the recovery of M.O.I. from the house of appellant Adikanda Sabu which was highly unsatisfactory. Mr. A. Rath, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, bas not seriously pressed into service the evidence with regard to the recovery of M.O.I and rightly so, in view of the fact that the only witness to the recovery, namely, P.W.11, had not been able to say as to whether it was recovered from the house of the appellant Adikanda and in the absence of the evidence of the other person who had witnessed the seizure, as deposed to by the police officer (P.W.12), the evidence of the latter (P.W.12) could not safely be accepted. Mr. Rath has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. I and has submitted that his evidence, if accepted, could be the foundation of an order of conviction