BISIKESAN SUNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under Section 380, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. Prosecution case is that the settlement Patwari, Chudamani Mahananda and his chainman Hinaketan Giri (P. W. 4) were putting up in the Deraghar of village Bhagatpur in the district of sambalpur. Gayadhar Nariha (P. W. 1) was guarding the Deraghar during their absence on the field and was also cooking food for them. The petitioner was a sworn friend of Chudamani. He stayed with the Patwari with the hope of getting the post of a Chainman. The Revenue Inspector asked the Patwari and the villagers including the Gountia not to keep the petitioner in the Deraghar as the patwari and the Chainman were being fed by the villagers and the stay of the petitioner meant further expenses for them. The petitioner was accordingly driven out on 3-1-64. On 4-1-04, the Patwari and P. W. . 4 left the Deraghar for the field work. They locked the Deraghar keeping inside it a cycle and their clothings. At about 11 A. M. P. W. 1 found the petitioner sitting inside the Deraghar. The petitioner admitted to have opened the Deraghar. He went out with the cycle and a bag containing the clothings of the Patwari and the Chainman after directing p. W. 1 to cook food for him and the Patwari. Thereafter he did not return. He was prosecuted under Sections 454 and 380 I. P C. The defence was one of denial The learned Magistrate convicted him under Sections 454 and 380. I P C and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months under each of the sections, the sentences to run consecutively. In appeal, the learned Sessionsjudge upheld the conviction and sentence passed under Section 380, I. P. C, and set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 464, I. P. C.

(2.) IN revision, Mr. Mohapatra challenged the concurrent finding as being based on unreliable evidence. After having gone through the evidence I am satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge correctly assessed the evidence. The finding of fact based on pure assessment of evidence is not assailable. This contention is accordingly rejected.

(3.) MR. Mohapatra next contended that the petitioner was under 21 years of age at the time when he was convicted by the Magistrate and was entitled to be released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act (Act No. 20 of 1958), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Sections 3 and 6 of the Act are relevant for the purpose. Section 6 reads thus---