LAWS(ORI)-2009-4-10

BHASKAR CHANDRA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On April 30, 2009
BHASKAR CHANDRA NAYAK Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6-4-1989 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, balasore convicting the appellants under section 412, I. P. C. and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years in S. T. No. 16/74 of 1988.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 3-9-1987 at about 6. 30 a. m. two unknown persons were found sitting at Khuladi Bazar chhak. Nagendra Mohan Jena, Harish-chandra Das and few others went near the said two unknown persons and asked them about their identity and destination. During that time one Satrughna Martha arrived there and immediately recognized them to be dacoits who had committed dacoity in 7-UP Howarh-Puri Express during the night in between 2nd and 3rd September, 1987. He further disclosed that he was one of the passengers in the compartment in which the dacoity took place. Nagendra snatched away the bag from those unknown persons, who took to their heels. After handing over the said bag to Bhaskar Nayak (appellant No. 1), who was a betel shop owner of Khuladi chhak, Nagendra and others chased those persons and apprehended them in a paddy field. It was found that more than half of the cash kept in the bag had been removed in the meantime by the present appellants and others. On arrival of the I. O. (P. W. 7)Nagendra handed over the bag containing the rest of the cash and those two unknown persons to him. G. R. P. S. Case No. 37 of 1987 was registered. During the course of investigation, P. W. 3, namely, Manmath nayak, produced a sum of Rs. 7,000/-saying that the said amount had been given to him by Laxmidhar Rout and the same was seized by the I. O. Khetrabasi Nayak (appellant No. 3 ). He also gave a sum of Rs. 1,437/-to P. W. 7, who seized the same. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet under sections 395/412, , I. P. C. was submitted against the present appellants and others.

(3.) THE plea of the appellants was complete denial of the allegation.