SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ori) 260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K.SAHOO, J.
Baikuntha Bhoi - Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
CRLA No. 21 of 2012, CRLA No. 504 of 2012, CRLA No. 719 of 2012
Decided On : 04-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rashmi Ranjan Nayak
For the Respondent: Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy Addl. Standing Counsel

For a conviction under IPC Section 395, participation of five or more persons is essential, and identification procedures must meet legal standards; failure leads to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 395 - Dacoity conviction - Four accused were convicted of dacoity, involving theft of cash and valuables - The court found that essential ingredients for dacoity under IPC section 391, requiring five or more persons, were not met as evidence did not prove participation of five or more persons - The court observed that the identification of two appellants lacked reliability since they were known to the informant prior to the incident, and the test identification parade was not properly conducted - Appeals allowed, conviction set aside. (Paras 6.5, 6.8, 9)

(B) Evidence - Test identification parade - The necessity for a valid test identification parade arises only when the accused are not previously known to the witness - Non-examination of the Magistrate who conducted the parade undermines its validity - The court deemed identification evidence ineffective due to procedural irregularities. (Paras 8.2, 8.4)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of committing dacoity on 13th June 2010, where they allegedly assaulted the informant and stole cash and property from him while he waited for a ride. The trial court convicted them based on identification and recovery of items.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution's evidence did not substantiate the charge of dacoity under IPC Section 395 as it failed to demonstrate the involvement of five or more persons. The court also found the identification of the appellants to be unreliable due to prior acquaintance with the informant and procedural flaws in the identification parade.

Issues: The validity of the charge under IPC Section 395 and the reliability of identifications made by the informant were questioned.

Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized that a mere assembly of four people does not suffice for a dacoity charge without evidence of five or more involved individuals; identification procedures must adhere to legal standards to have weight in court.

Result: Appeals allowed, conviction set aside.

Table of Content
1. details of the dacoity incident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. defense denies prosecution claims. (Para 4)
3. trial court's assessment of evidence. (Para 5)
4. contentions from the appellants. (Para 6)
5. court's basis for assessing evidence. (Para 7 , 8)
6. judgment set aside and acquittal. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT :

S. K. SAHOO, J.

The appellants Baikuntha Bhoi and Prasanta Nayak in CRLA No. 21 of 2012, the appellant Bishnu Nayak in CRLA No.504 of 2012 and the appellant Raju @ Rajesh Behera in CRLA No. 719 of 2012 faced trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhubaneswar in Crl. Tr. Case No.47/205/2010 for commission of offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that on 13th June, 2010 at about 10.30 p.m. at Palasuni under Mancheswar police station, Bhubaneswar, they committed dacoity in respect of cash amounting to Rs.8,000/-, two numbers of mobiles, one suitcase, etc. of the informant, Bhabani Shankar Nayak (P.W.4).

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2011 convicted all the appellants under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand) each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months each.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13.06.2010 at about 10.30 p.m., Bhabani Shankar Nayak (P.W.4), the informant in the case, returned from Bangalore to Bhubaneswar by Prasanti Express and near Master Canteen Chhak, he was waiting for an auto rickshaw to proceed to Palasuni to his house. In the meantime, one Omni Maruti car came near him and the driver called him and agreed to leave him at Palasuni. He boarded the Omni car and three other persons were also present in that car. One passerby, who boarded in the said vehicle, got down at Vani Vihar. When P.W.4 asked him to stop the vehicle, he did not listen to him and drove the car speedily. It is the further prosecution case that all the appellants assaulted P.W.4 inside the car causing bleeding injuries on his person. They also forcibly took away his cash of Rs.8,000/-, two valuable mobiles, a trolley suit case and other valuable articles and threw him out by the side of the road at Trinath Bazar. Thereafter, a young man came and rescued him and then the police officers with P.C.R. van came and also rescued him.

On the basis of the written report presented by P.W.4, the Inspector in-charge of Mancheswar police station registered Mancheswar P.S. Case No. 142 dated 14.06.2010 against four unknown persons and directed Abhinaba Dalua, S.I. of Police (P.W.8) to take up investigation of the case.

During the course of investigation, P.W.8 examined the informant (P.W.4), visited the spot, sent the injured informant to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for medical examination and examined other witnesses. Subsequently, on 22.06.2010 on getting information from S.I. Sitakanta Das of Sahid Nagar police station, he proceeded to Sahid Nagar police station and examined the appellant Raju @ Rajesh Behera, who confessed his guilt and disclosed the names of other appellants before him and P.W.9. He recorded the confessional statement of the appellant Raju @ Rajesh Behera and being led by the said appellant on 22.06.2010 at 11.00 a.m., some articles were recovered and accordingly, P.W.8 seized the same as per seizure list Ext.5. The appellant Bishnu Nayak was taken on remand along with appellant Raju @ Rajesh Behera and P.W.8 made a prayer before the Court for conducting T.I. parade of the appellants Raju @ Rajesh Behera and Bishnu Nayak and accordingly, T.I. parade was conducted at Bhubaneswar Special Jail, Jharpada on 26.06.2010 in which P.W.4, the informant participated as identifying witness and he correctly identified both the appellants. P.W.8 also seized the Maruti van as per seizure list Ext.6 on 01.07.2010 from the owner of Maruti van, namely, Sushanta Kumar Samal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top