Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Pania Gada - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha - Respondent
JCRLA No. 49 of 2011
Decided On : 28-10-2021
Arms Act - Dacoity - Indian Penal Code, section 458, section 395 - section 25 of the Arms Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellants faced trial for offences under sections 458 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution's case was that unknown persons committed robbery at the informant's house, and the appellants were identified as the culprits.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the appellants of the charge under section 25 of the Arms Act but convicted them under sections 458 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the appellants committed dacoity but found no evidence of unlawful possession of firearms.
Issues: The issues included the identification of the appellants, the conduct of the test identification parade, and the lack of corroborative evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that single identification without corroborative evidence is weak and unreliable. It emphasized the importance of conducting a test identification parade and the need for corroborative evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT
S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellants Pania Gada in JCRLA No.49 of 2011, Bhutulu Gochhayat, Aswini Ghadei and Dhania Sahu in CRLA No.528 of 2012 and Kanhei Naik @ Chipa in CRLA No.392 of 2013 faced trial in the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No.177/116 of 2005 for commission of offences punishable under sections 458 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25 of the Arms Act.
Learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2007 acquitting the appellants of the charge under section 25 of the Arms Act but convicted them under sections 458 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under section 458 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (Ext.1) lodged by the informant Krushna Chandra Seth (P.W.9) before the Inspector in-Charge of Dhama police station on 24.09.2004, is that during the intervening night of 23/24.09.2004 at about 2.45 a.m. some unknown persons entered inside his house and committed robbery. His mother, younger brother Radheshyam Seth (P.W.4) and others were present in the house at the time of commission of robbery. It is stated that the culprits used 'bhujali' and pistol while committing the crime and they took away gold and silver ornaments and cash. In the first information report, the informant specifically mentioned that four persons committed the crime and he has given their description in the first information report.
On the basis of such first information report, Dhama P.S. Case No.88 dated 24.09.2004 was registered under sections 458 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code against the unknown persons. P.W.16 Monaranjan Pradhan, Officer in- Charge of Dhama Police Station after registration of the case, took up investigation. During course of investigation, he examined the informant and other witnesses, visited the spot, prepared spot map Ext.18 on 07.10.2004 and arrested three accused persons, namely, Subharanjan Das, Prabin Sen and Jayalal Behera and seized some cash and toy pistols, 'bhujali' from their possession and forwarded them to Court on 08.10.2004. These five appellants were arrested in connection with Jujumura P.S. Case No.81 of 2004 and some articles were also seized from their possession. The appellants were taken on remand in this case on 10.10.2004. On the prayer of the Investigating Officer (P.W.16), P.W.17, J.M.F.C., Sambalpur conducted the test identification parade of the suspects inside the Circle Jail, Samblapur on 14.10.2004 in which the informant (P.W.9) participated as an identifying witness and he identified all the five appellants. The other accused persons, who were earlier arrested and forwarded to Court, were not placed in the test identification parade on that day and it appears that the case against them has been splitted up. P.W.16 handed over the charge of investigation to Circle Inspector of Police, Subash Chandra Sahu (P.W.15), who on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants as well as other co-accused persons.
3. During course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as seventeen witnesses.
P.W.1 Haripriya Seth is the daughter of the informant, who identified the appellant Babulu Gada @ Pania Gada in Court to have entered inside their house. She stated that two other accused persons to whom she could not identify demanded key of the almirah kept in the house at the point of knife and out of fear, her mother handed over the key of the almirah to them and they took away the gold ornaments from the almirah.
P.W.2 Rudrani Seth is the wife of the younger brother of the informant and she stated that she identified the appellants Bhutulu Gochhayat, Dhania Sahu and Ashok Ghadei in Court to have entered into her house and de
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
