DANU ALIAS BISWAJIT PATTANAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of the judgement passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir. In Sessions Case No. 60/30 of 1992 whereby he convicted the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') under Sections 395 and 457, IPC and Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosive Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 10 days for the offence under Section 395, IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 days for the offence under Section 457, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosive Act, and all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Therefore, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgement.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 3/4-11-1991 at about 10 p.m. the informant Rajkishore Panigrahi P.W. 29 and his family members having taken their supper, went to sleep. At about 2 a.m. in the night eight culprits being armed with bhujali, knife, etc. came to the house of the informant, exploded bumbs and having made forcible entry into the house assaulted some of the inmates, recovered ornaments and cash and decamped with the booties. On a written report being lodged, a case under Section 457 and 395, IPC and Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosive Act was registered, whereupon investigation was, taken up in course of which these accused persons and some others were arrested and put to a test identification parade. Some gold ornaments and cash were also seized and on close of investigation, charge sheet was laid against eight accused persons to stand their trial for the offences as aforesaid. Since two of the accused persons could not be apprehended, the ease against them was split up. Therefore, six accused persons faced trial and the learned Court below on consideration of the evidence while convicting these accused persons, acquitted accused Surendra Senapati.

(3.) The plea of the accused persons was denial simpliciter.