GOBINDA DEHURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was convicted under Sections 451 and 379 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 50/ -. The case for the prosecution was that the Petitioner on the midnight of 11 -8 -56 entered the house of Mayabati Bewa (P. W. 2), snatched away her necklace worth about Rs. 200/ - and ran away with it. She residing alarm, hearing which her son P. W. 1 and another person sleeping in their house P. W. 6 came and tried to chase the Petitioner, but they could not catch hold of him. A report was made the next day at the Police Station and the accused was charge -sheeted. The stolen property was not recovered from the accused.

(2.) THE conviction was based upon the evidence of P. W. 2 (Mayabati) P. Ws. 1 and 6 the son and another inmate of the house respectively and P. W. 3, a peon of the forest department. The first information report which was lodged before the police by P. W. 1 the son was to the effect that according to the mother's description of the person who snatched away the necklace, she thought that he might be the accused. The F.I.R. does not state that the accused was the thief or committed the offence. In the column relating thereto, the word "unknown" is entered. In evidence, P. Ws. 1, 2 and 6 stated that they identified the Petitioner as the thief by torchlight. This evidence cannot be accepted in view of the statement in the F.I.R. and certain statements made by these three persons to the police officer in their examination. These contradictions were brought about in cross -examination and the witnesses were confronted with them. The learned appellate Court did not give any weight to these statements and simply brushed them aside saying that those statements could be used only for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction and not as substantive evidence. It is not a case of using those statements made to the Police as substantive evidence. The contradictions were elicited after confronting the witnesses. In the face of those contradictions, a court can come to the conclusion that the evidence, as given before the Court, cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, I am of opinion that there is no reliable evidence to bring home the guilt to the accused. The conviction and sentence are therefore set aside. Bail bond shall be cancelled and fine, if paid, should be refunded. Petition allowed.