KULAMANI NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals by four different convicts are directed against their convictions and sentences passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Angul in Sessions Trial No. 19-A of 1981 and since all these appeals are directed against the same judgment and common questions of fact and law are involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Six known accused persons along with two other unknown persons were charged under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed dacoity in the house of the informant Biswanath (P.W. 1) on 25.5.81 at night. Accused Sadasiba was charged under Section 412, I.P.C. for having dishonestly received stolen gold ornaments having reason to believe that the same are the stolen properties. Of these seven persons, accused Biswanath and Sadasiba have been acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Of the remaining five accused persons accused Nenkuri Lokanath has not preferred any appeal but the remaining four persons have preferred the four criminal appeals from the Jail.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 25.5.81 the informant (P.W. 1), his wife Susama (P.W. 3) and his father Kandarpa (P.W. 4) went to bed along with some other inmates of the house. P W. 1 was sleeping outside the house. When P.W. 4 was in. the front door of the house and the other inmates in the courtyard, at 9 p.m., P.W. 1 heard some sound and suddenly woke up. He found tea culprits focusing torch light towards him. When he challenged, the culprits demanded from him the unlicensed gun. Then one of them tied his hands by a rope and three of them guarded him. Rest of the accused persons entered inside the house forcibly and tied his father (P.W. 4). Thereupon the dacoits ransacked the house by searching for valuables and ultimately decamped with some gold ornaments, some sarees, some Dhotis, and cash of Rs. 875/-. P.W. 1 did not leave the house. P.W. 1 was so much perplexed that he did not go to the police station in the night nor even on the next day, but waited till 27-5-81 when he learnt that the Officer-in-charge of Jarpada P.S. had come to a nearby village for investigation into another dacoity case and P.W. 1 went there and lodged the first information report (Ext. 1). The Officer-in charge, Jarpada P.S. (P.W. 18) registered a case and started investigation. After completion of investigation, P.W. 18 filed the charge sheet. Thereafter on being committed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate the accused persons were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.

(3.) The plea of the accused persons is one of denial. According to the defence version no dacoity had taken place in the home of P.W. 1 in the night of occurrence and the accused persons have been falsely implicated.