SRIKANTA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein calls in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in S.T. No.47 of 2010 on the file of the Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-II), Kandhamal. The learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-II), Kandhamal vide the impugned judgment and order dated 28.09.2010 held the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 147/148/427/435/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.2000.00, in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months under Sec. 435 of I.P.C., R.I. for two years ten years and pay a fine of Rs.2000.00, in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months under Sec. 427 of I.P.C., R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs.500, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month under Sec. 148 of I.P.C., but had not passed any separate sentence under Sec. 147 of I.P.C.

(2.) Prosecution case placed before the trial court is that on 24.09.2008 at about 10 p.m. while the informant with her daughters and mother-in-law were going to sleep, a mob armed with 'Khanda', 'Kati', kerosene bottles etc. attacked the houses of some Christian families, ransacked and looted the properties and set fire to the dwelling house and household articles. Out of fear to their lives, the informant with her family members went out through the 'Bari' side and hiding themselves near a bush, found the present appellant and others damaging and setting fire to her house and household articles. They also took away two cycles. Basing on the report of the informant, a case was registered, investigation commenced and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the present appellant and others under Sections 147/148/427/436/379/149 of I.P.C. and, accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session.

(3.) During course of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective inasmuch as though there was inconsistency in the version of the witnesses and the evidence on identification of the appellant out of the large mob during darkness was unworthy of credence and no specific overt act was attributed to the appellant, still accepting such evidence to be trustworthy, convicted him. Furthermore, when the witnesses examined are all relatives and there is unexplained delay in lodging of the report, the trial court ought not have accepted the prosecution case to have been proved. Hence, he submits the judgment of conviction is indefensible. Besides this, he advanced an alternative submission that the sentence passed is harsh and excessive.