MENAKA MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was the informant P. W. 8 in S. T. Case No. 12/1/9/ 311 of 96/95/94 has challenged in this revision the legality of judgment and order passed therein by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purl acquitting the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 accused persons of the charges for commission of offences under Sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'I. P. C.') and Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosive Act (in short the 'I. E. Act'). Allegation in the case relates to dacoity in the house of P. W. 8 in the night intervening 21/22-01-1994.

(2.) Prosecution case is that when P. W. 8 with her husband P. W. 9 and their baby son were sleeping inside a room, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 accused persons along with some others entered into their house by forcibly opening the chain of the door by means of knife and three culprits including opposite party accused Gangadhar entered inside the room. The room was lighted by a kerosene lamp. They forcibly took away the gold earrings which P. W. 8 was wearing and also took away a cash of Rs. 20,000/- and some gold ornaments worth of Rs. 1,30,000/- by breaking open a trunk kept inside the room. In course of commission of dacoity, P. W. 9 was caught hold of and assaulted as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries. After commission of dacoity, while leaving, the culprits exploded bombs. Hearing the sound of explosion of bomb, family members of the informant who were sleeping in another house as well as some co- villagers woke up and found opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as well as some other co-accused, some of were known of them, escaping. They chased the culprits but could not apprehend any of them. On the basis of written report Ext. 4 presented by P. W. 8 at Nimapara Police Station, case was registered and S. I. of Police P. W. 11 was entrusted with the investigation. On completion of investigation, C. I. of Police, Nimapara P. W. 13 submitted charge-sheet for commission of offences under Sections 457 and 395 I. P. C. as well as 9 (b) of the I. E. Act against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as well as three co-accused persons who appear to have faced a separate trial. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 pleaded complete denial to the charges framed against them for commission of offences under Section 395 of the I. P. C. and 9 (b) of I. E. Act.

(3.) In order to substantiate the allegations prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. P. Ws. 8, 9, 11 and 13 have already been introduced. P. W. 10 is P. W. 9's brother. P. W. 6 is P. W. 10's daughter. P. Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 7 are their co-villagers. P. W. 12 was the J. M. F. C., Nimapara. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are doctors who examined P. W. 10 and accused Rajkishore respectively. No evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the accused persons. P. Ws. 4, 5 and 7 did not support the case of the prosecution for which they were declared to be hostile witnesses. Evidence of P. W. 1 also did not incriminate any of the accused persons. On analysis of the evidence of the material witnesses P. Ws. 6, 8, 9 and 10, the learned trial Court found each of them to be unreliable witness and the prosecution case as put forth by them to be doubtful and unacceptable. Accordingly, the prosecution was found to have failed to prove the charges against the accused persons.