JOHAN BAGH, Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are interlinked as they are directed against a common judgment passed by learned C.J.M. -cum -Assistant Sessions Judge, Jeypore. Appellant Sarat Chandra Takri who has filed Jail Cd. Appeal No. 243/94 had faced trial along with Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 260/94 in the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jeypore in S.C. Case Nos. 33/92 and '33 -A/92. Both the Sessions Cases were heard together and each of the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 457 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "I.P.C.'), seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 395 read with Section 457, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 9 -B of the Indian Explosive Act (in short, 'Explosive Act'). Sentences were directed to run concurrent. Judgment of conviction and sentence was assailed in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1993 in the Court of learned Addl, Sessions Judge, Joypore. Appellate Court was of the view that the ingredients of Section 397, I.P.C. and Section 9. B of Explosive Act were not made out. However, he maintained conviction under Section 395 , I.P.C. and sentence imposed therefore.") 2. Accusations which led to trial of accused persons six in number along with several others essentially are as follows:

(2.) TEN witnesses were examined to substantiate the prosecution case. Placing reliance on evidence of the eye witnesses who were victims and had sustained injuries viz, the informant and Naba Kumar Sahu and one Mohan Subudhi and factum of recovery, accused persons were found guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Appeal was disposed of in the manner indicated above.

(3.) COURTS below have carefully analysed evidence on record. They placed reliance on the evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. p. ws. 1 to 3 who had sustained injuries in course of the alleged assaults. Their evidence is of great value because they apart from being eye witnesses, had sustained injuries because of the alleged acts. Nothing has been shown as to how' their evidence suffers from any infirmity. They have graphically described the incident, identified accused persons and in addition, recoveries were effected. As has been observed by the Apex Court in Jamuna Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar. : A.I.R 1974 S.C. 1822, an injured person in any case, would not substitute a wrong person for his actual assailant. That being the position, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction as done. Sentence awarded also does not appear to be unreasonable and perverse.