SHYAMLAL PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against common judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, passed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 24/15 and 30/16 of 1992. Including the present petitioner there were four accused persons who faced trial in the Court of the S. D. J. M., Rairakhol, under Sections 458 and 392, I.P.C. and Sections 25-A and 27 of the Arms Act. Upon trial, each of them was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count under Sections 458 and 392, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count under Sections 25-A and 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by this judgement, accused persons preferred two appeals separately and the learned Additional Sessions Judge upon hearing while acquitting accused Artatrana from all the charges confined the order of conviction and sentence passed against all the accused including the present petitioner under Section 392, I.P.C. So far their conviction under Section 458, I.P.C. is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge altered the same to one under Section 451, Part II read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He, however, set aside the conviction and sentence of all the accused persons recorded under Sections 25-A and 27 of the Arms Act. It is against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present petitioner alone has filed this revision.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 17-11-89 when the informant's husband Sawaria Agrawala P.W. 4 was absent from home, three culprits having pistol and bombs came in a jeep and knocked at his door by uttering his name. His field servant Dhaneswar Mahiari, P.W. 2 and son Deepak Agarwala, P.W. 3 replied that he was not available in the house. They told that they being congress men had come to discuss with P.W. 4 and if he was absent, they should tell something to his wife. P.Ws. 2 and 3 then opened the door, whereupon three culprits entered inside, ransacked the house and made good their escape with the booties, viz., gold ornaments, silver coins and cups and cash. On return, P.W. 4 came to know the incident from the family members and lodged report, Ext. 2 to the Police on receipt of which a case was registered, investigation was taken up, in course of which the present petitioner and others were apprehended, some alleged stolen articles were recovered, test identification parades of persons and properties were conducted and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was placed against four accused to stand their trial.

(3.) The plea of the petitioner was one of denial and false implication.