SURESH CHANDRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER of conviction of the petitioners under S. 395, IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate - cum - Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayagada in the combined trial of Sessions Case No. 7 of 1993 and 11 of 1993, was upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore as per the common judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal Nos. 26 to 30 of 1994 of the said Court. Being aggrieved by such orders of conviction and sentence the six convicted accused persons not only preferred Criminal Revisions in the following indicated manner but also three of them send applications from the Jail which were registered in this Court as Jail Criminal Revisions. To get a clear picture about their status, the total numbers of accused who faced the trial, the accused persons who were acquitted and convicted and the appeals and the revisions which were preferred are indicated below. (The names of the accused persons are described according to the serial numbers assigned to them in the impugned judgment of the trial Court.) Out of the above accused persons accused No. 1 was the accused in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1993 and the rest were accused in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1993 of the Court of Asstt. Sessions Judge.

(2.) THE aforesaid accused persons were committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge in the above noted Sessions cases, on the charge framed under S.395 and S.171/34, IPC read with S. 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884. As many as 16 witnesses were examined and series of documents were proved besides 16 articles were exhibited as Material Objects (in short M.Os.) on behalf of the prosecution. On assessment of evidence on record, trial Court acquitted all the accused persons from the charge under S.171/34, IPC and S. 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884. However on the basis of the evidence of PW No. 16, the Investigating Officer and some corroborative evidence relating to recovery made under S. 27 of the Evidence Act and identification of those articles being belonging to PWs 11, 12 and 15, besides finding finger print of one of the accused on some of the stolen properties trial Court held that the case of dacoity is proved against the aforesaid six persons. Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The seized articles (i.e., the Material Objects) were directed to be returned to the owners therof, i.e. PWs 11, 12 and 15, but after disposal of the split up cases against two absconding accused persons. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore on appreciation of evidence on record, in the context of search, recovery and seizure under S. 27 of the Evidence Act, approved the finding recorded by the trial Court and affirmed the order of conviction.

(3.) IT is noticed in the impugned judgment of the trial Court that the Investigating Agency though took steps for conducting the T.I. Parade of the ornaments, recovered and seized but no attempt was made by PW No. 16 to apply for T.I. parade of the accused persons. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge has noted in the impugned judgment that PW No. 16, explained that since the victims of the dacoity did not state in course of their examination under S.161, CrPC that they could identify the dacoits, therefore, he did not apply for T.I. parade of the accused persons. It further appears from the impugned judgment that PW No. 11, one of the victims identified three of the accused persons, viz., Dhanalu Raju (accused No. 1), G. Buddha (accused No. 3) and Krushna alias Kuso (accused No. 4). Trial Court did not find her credible in that respect on the ground of existence of contradictions relating to non - existence of a kitchen. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge also discarded evidence of some witnesses on the ground that though such witnesses were confronted with their previous statement made before the I.O., but the prosecution did not confront such statements to PW No. 16.