BAMA JENA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the judgment of the Adaitional Sessions Judge of cuttack, maintaining the conviction ot the two petitioners under Section 412, I. P. C. but reducing the sentence passed on them by the Assistant Sessions Judge of cuttack, from three years rigorous imprisonment each to eighteen months rigorous imprisonment each.

(2.) THE two petitioners were tried by a Jury in the Court of the Assistant Sessions judge of Cuttack tor offences under Section 395 and Section 412, I. P. C. A dacoity was committed in the house of one Khetrabasi Panigrahi during the night of the 15th/16th May 1952 and several valuable ornaments were taken away. On 21-5-1952 some of these ornaments were recovered from the house of the two appellants and they were subsequently identiiied by Khetribasi Panigrahi as some of the properties that had been looted from his house by the dacoits. Some of the witnesses also claimed to have recognised the two petitioners during the commission of the dacoity. Hence alternative charges under Section 395 and section 412, I. P. C. were framed against them. The two petitioners, however, denied the charges but admitted the recovery of the ornaments from their houses. Petitioner Bama Jena stated that most of the ornaments recovered from his house belonged to him and that the rest belonged to one Atul a minor son of his brotherin-law and that they were kept in his custody. He thus clearly admitted the possession of these ornaments and has given some explanation to account for the same. Similarly, petitioner Poka Jena admitted the recovery of the ornaments from his house, but claimed them as belonging to him.

(3.) IN his charge to the jury the learned Assistant Sessions Judge carefully analysed the oral evidence on the question of identification regarding the actual participation of the two petitioners in the commission of dacoity. He pointed out some of the unsatisfactory features in the test identification parade and rightly left it to the Jury to accept or reject the oral evidence on the question of identification. The Jury gave a unanimous verdict of 'not guilty' in respect of the charge under section 395 I. P. C. and hence it may be inferred that they were not prepared to accept the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the participation of the petitioners in the commission of dacoity.