The court upheld the convictions for violent offenses based on overwhelming eyewitness testimony while reducing sentences to fines due to the appellants' changed circumstances over time.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, is filed by the appellants under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C., assailing the judgment and order dated 31.03.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No. 100/24 of 1995, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant- No.1 for the offence U/s.148/452/325 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 148 of IPC and R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month on each count under Sections 452 and 325 of IPC; the appellant nos.2 and 3 have been convicted under Sections 148 /323 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 148 of IPC and R.I. for four months under Section 323 of IPC and appellant nos.4 and 5 have been convicted under Sections 148 /323/452 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 148 of IPC, R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 452 of IPC and R.I. for four months under Section 323 of IPC.

2. The prosecution case tersely stated is that on 31.01.1994 at about 4.45 P.M. in the colony of Straw Board Industries Pvt. Ltd. the accused persons being armed with iron rod, chain, lathi etc. entered into the colony with an object to commit murder of the employees of the company, namely, the informant Prafulla Kumar Chand, Ramsinghasan Tiwari, Sadhu Charan Patel and Santosh Bhoi by trespassing into the residence of Ranjit Mishra assaulted him and his brother Mandhata Mishra and forcibly entered inside the residence of Ujal Chandra Giri and assaulted him and committed theft of his watch, cash and other articles and scolded in filthy language and threatened the employees with bodily injury.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Titilagarh P.S. Case No. 15 dated 31.01.1994 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147 /148/307/452/380/506/149 of IPC, which corresponds to G.R. Case No. 26 of 1994 After investigation, charges were framed against the appellants for the offences, as mentioned above and they were put to trial.

4. Heard Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined as many as fifteen witnesses, whereas the defence took a stand of denial and claimed trial.

6. P.W.1, was the informant; P.W.2 was an employee of the company and also an eye witness to the occurrence; P.W.3 was also another eye witness to the occurrence and seizure; P.W.4 was another employee of the company and witness to the seizure; P.Ws. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, the employees and ex-employees of the company were the victim-injured persons; P.W.7 was an employee, who was a post occurrence witness; P.Ws.13 and 15 were the two doctors, who examined the injured persons; P.W.5 and P.W.14 were the two Investigating Officers of the present case.

7. The learned trial Court after thorough analysis of all the evidence on record arrived at the following conclusion:-

“18. Before parting with the judgment it may be observed that there is no acceptable evidence that –

(1) All the 29 accused persons had taken part in the alleged crime;

(2) all the accused persons had trespassed inside the residence of P.Ws. 10, 11 and 12;

(3) Theft from the residence of P.Ws.10, 11 and 12 was committed by any of the accused persons; and (4) accused persons had intended to attempt on any one’s life.

19. From the above discussion it is to be concluded that prosecution has