PRAVAKAR GIRI Vs. HEMANTA GIRI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions arise out of the same judgment of the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in appeal confiscating the property seized in G.R. Case No. 1482/82 to the State. The facts stated in short are that opposite party No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 442/85 who is also the Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 337/85 lodged an F. I.R. on 8 -6 -1982 alleging theft of twenty pieces of laterite stones kept inside his Bari. After investigation chargesheet was submitted against the Petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 442/85 and another. During the trial, the case against one of the accused. Dharanidhar Giri was compounded between the informant and him, and after trial the other accused persons were acquitted and orders were passed by the trial Court for return of the seized property to the informant. An appeal carried by the two accused persons the Petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 422/85, against the direction of the Court for return of the property to the informant was allowed on 1 -11 -1983 with the Sessions Judge directing the property seized to be released in their favour. As against such order a revision was preferred before this Court, i.e. Criminal Revision No. 552/83, in which the order of the Sessions Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded to him for reconsideration. The appeal was transferred to the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge Cuttack who held on re -appreciation of the evidence that both the informant as well as the accused bad failed to establish the property in question to have been seized from their possession and hence directed the seized property to be confiscated to the State. The order of the appellate Court has been impugned in these revisions and hence both the revisions are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both the revisions has taken me through the evidence adduced in the case. So far as the informant is concerned, the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge is without exception since even the informant as P.W. 1 did not state in his evidence the seized stones as belonging to him. The two independent witnesses, P.Ws. 3 and 4 also never said the stones as belonging to P.W. 1 and as a matter of fact P.W. 3 stated that he could not state to whom the stones belonged and P.W. 4 even though made a statement that the stones belonged to P.W. 1, yet it was proved by P.W. 7, the I. O. that be had stated before him of not being able to say to whom the stones belonged. The stones were admittedly seized from an open space in front of the house of Petitioner Hemanta Giri (Cri: Rev. 442/85). There is absolutely no statement in the evidence of P.W. 1 that the stones stolen from his Bari were the same seized during the investigation of the case and hence the identity of the stones as the same as that of these purported to be stolen from the backyard of P.W. 1 was never established.

(3.) IN the result, both the revisions are dismissed as being without any merit.