PADMALAYA BARIK AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question for decision in these revisions, whether the conviction for the offence under Section 392, I.P.C. and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/ - each as imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court should be sustained.

(2.) HEARD Mr. N.C. Pati, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Perused the impugned judgment and the evidence of witnesses as referred to by Mr. Pati.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below have discussed the evidence on record and given their reasons for accepting the prosecution case. I have not found any infirmity in conducting the proceeding. The scope for revision being limited to the extent of only judging the propriety and correctness of the judgment, I do not find any justifiable reason to disturb the findings on the basis of facts proved, that P.W.7 went with accused Padmalava on motor cycle to Jamukeswar. Secondly, all the four accused persons including Padmalava slept in the house of Niranjan and thirdly, in the morning Padmalava was found missing for which P.W. 7 searched for him. P.W.7 asked Jugal to take him to Rairangpur and thus both came to Rairangpur where F.I.R. was lodged. I do not disbelieve this evidence of P.W.7 alone, reason being that though cross -examination has been aimed to discredit the witness, nothing has been elicited in the cross -examination from the side of defense to disbelieve that part of evidence. That apart, the evidence of P.W. 7 is found to have been adequately corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.8 & 9. The evidence of P.W. 7 coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer has successfully proved recovery of the money at the instance of Padmalava.