The court applied the principles of evidence, rejection of false implication plea, and the application of the Probation of Offenders Act in reaching its decision.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment passed by learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Baripada in Criminal Appeal No.9/66 of 2011/2009 in confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia in I.C.C. No.44/2006 (T.C. No.619/2007). As per judgment passed on 14th December, 2009, the trial court had convicted six persons including the present five Revision Petitioners for the offences under Sections 379/447/506 of I.P.C. and passed sentence against each as follows:-

Petitioner No.1 (Ramanath Ho) was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C., R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 447 of I.P.C. and R.I. for four months for the offence under Section 506 (1) of I.P.C. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 namely, Aswini Ho and Ladhula Ho were sentenced to undergo R.I. each for one year for offence under Section 379 of I.P.C., R.I. for two months for offence under Section 447 of I.P.C. and R.I. for 8 months for the offence punishable under Section 506(1) of I.P.C. Petitioner No.4-Kuni Ho was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C., R.I. for 15 days for the offence under Section 447 of I.P.C. and R.I. for two months for offence under Section 506(1) of I.P.C. Petitioner No.5-Balenga Ho was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.150/-for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C., Rs.50/-for the offence under Section 447 of I.P.C. and Rs.100/-of I.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. in default, to suffer imprisonment for six days, two days and four days respectively.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Krushna Ch. Jarika (Opposite Party No.1) claiming to be the owner of 7.66 acres of land having five numbers of tamarind tree on it filed a complaint case alleging that on 12th April, 2006 at about 10 A.M. one Bangra Ho (since dead), Aswini Ho (Petitioner No.2) and Ladhula Ho (Petitioner No.3) climbed on the said trees and were plucking tamarind fruits from the said trees. Other persons namely, Ramanath Ho (Petitioner No.1), Kuni Ho (Petitioner No.4) and Balenga Ho (Petitioner No.5) were collecting the tamarind fruits on the ground. When Krushna Ch. Jarika objected to this, all the accused persons being armed with Bala, bow and arrows etc. threatened and asked him to leave the place, failing which he would face dire consequences. They also abused him saying “SALA, MAAGHIA” etc. Some co-villagers also objected to the act of the accused persons, but they took away six quintals of tamarind fruits worth Rs.6,000/-. The matter was attempted to be resolved amicably in the village, but since such efforts failed, Krushna Ch. Jarika presented the complaint in the Court on 15th April, 2006, as 13th April, 2006 and 14th April, 2006 were holidays for the Court.

The accused persons took the plea of denial. In addition, accused Ladhula Ho and Ramanath Ho claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case because of prior enmity.

To prove his case, the complainant examined three witnesses including himself as P.W.2, and P.Ws.1 and 3 being occurrence witnesses. Besides, the complainant also proved seven documents including the R.O.R. of the land in question as Ext.1. The defence did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary.

In course of trial the witnesses including the complainant clearly deposed about the occurrence and their sworn testimonies were not discredited according to the trial court. Further, the plea of false implication in view of prior enmity was also examined in detail by the trial court only to be rejected. As regards the delay in presenting the complaint, learned trial court found that while the occurrence took on 12th April, 2006, the complainant tried to resolve the matter amicably in the village and as it could not be resolved, he approached the Court on 15th April, 2006 as the Court was closed on 13th April, 2006 and 14th April, 2006.