SAHEB KULU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was one of the accused in Sessions Trial No. 6/2 of 1994 in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum -Asst. Sessions Judge, Sundargarh charged with the offence under Section 395, Indian Penal Code for committing dacoity in the house of the informant in the night 29.8.1993. After trial, he was convicted for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - in default to undergo R.I. for three months. The Petitioner challenged the said order of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 63/90 of 1994 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh. The said appeal having been dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Trial Court being confirmed, the Petitioner has filed the present revision to set aside the order of conviction and to set him at liberty.

(2.) ACCORDING to Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned orders of conviction and sentence are unsustainable as the evidence on record do not establish any link between the Petitioner and the incident alleged dacoity. He pointed out that the evidence of P.W. 1 relating to the identification of the Petitioner is not at all reliable as the same is laden with contradictions and improbabilities and is also not supported by any other witness. Mr. Mohanty also pointed out that the Courts below committed grave legal error in not considering the abnormal delay in lodging the FIR and in accepting Exts. 5 and 6 and the evidence of the seizure witness regarding recovery of the utensils as those evidences were hit under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. He claims that in view of the illegality committed by the Courts below, the Petitioner deserves to be acquitted.

(3.) AT the outset, it is to be remembered that a Revisional Court cannot reassess the entire evidence and record its own finding substituting the findings of the Courts below. The Revisional Court can only examine whether the Courts below acted without jurisdiction or their approach suffer from any illegality or perversity.