STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SATRUGHANA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents figured as the accused persons and stood charged under section 395 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code with having committed dacoity in the house of Kesaba Sahu (P.W. 3) at about 2 p.m. on September 5, 1979, being armed with deadly weapons and by show of force in the course of which rice and other articles had allegedly been removed. The prosecution had examined fifteen witnesses and had, in particular, relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, two inmates of the house of the victim and that of P.Ws. 6 and 8 all of whom had figured as witnesses to the occurrence. The respondents had pleaded that they had falsely been involved in the commission of the offence owing to previous rivalry. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court held that the charge had not been brought home to respondents and accordingly they were acquitted of the charge. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order-of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. It i3 important to keep in mind that in the First Information Report (Ext. 1) lodged by no other person than the victim himself (P. W. 3), no allegation regarding commission of dacoity had been made. On the other hand, a case had been registered on its basis under sections 147 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. This was a very significant and important aspect of which due notice had been taken by the trial court. In the course of investigation, Krutibas (P.W 4), the brother of P.W. 3, had submitted to the Investigating Officer a list of stolen articles. This would be construed to be a statement made to a police officer in the course of investigation and wild, therefore, hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and rendered inadmissible on that account. Even assuming, however, that this could be admitted in evidence, rightly the trial court had taken note of the fact that it had not been stated therein that any of the respondents had been responsible for looting the properties.

(3.) The trial court had carefully examined the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, two inmates of the house of P.W. 3, who were highly interested witnesses and there were material discrepancies their evidence which need not again be catalogued in this judgment. The learned trial Judge found that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the one hand was discrepant and irreconcilable with that of P.W. 6. Due notice had been taken of the fall that P.W. 8, who had involved the respondents, had been examined in the course of investigation long after the occurrence. As would appear from the materials placed before the trial court, all was not well between both the sides and therefore, the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution required careful scrutiny as had been done by the trial court.