The appellate court affirmed the trial court's conviction, emphasizing limited scrutiny of evidential assessments, and extended probation based on the Petitioners' ages and lack of subsequent offenses.

JUDGMENT :

V.Narasingh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 17.01.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in Criminal Appeal No. 33/16 of 1998–2003, affirming the judgment of conviction qua the Petitioner dated 21.07.1998 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No. 50/20 of 1997 (arising out of G.R. Case No. 27 of 1996 corresponding to T.R. No. 841 of 1996 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Madanpur, Rampur). By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court acquitted the co-accused but found Petitioner No. 1, Jalanidhi Lima, guilty of the offences under Sections 452 , 324 and 366 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and Petitioner No. 2, Banchanidhi Lima, guilty of the offences under and 366 read with of the Indian Penal Code, while acquitting him of the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly, Petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, for the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, for the offence under Section 366 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code; and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No. 2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, for the offence under of the Indian Penal Code; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, for the offence under read with of the Indian Penal Code, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the Prosecution is that on 05.02.1996 at about 8:00 P.M., the accused Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 along with others, came in a jeep bearing registration No. OR-S-5693 to the house of Bishnu Rout- the informant during his absence and forcibly entered into the house. By showing a knife, they snatched one gold earring from the ear of the wife of the informant and took away Rs.10,000/- from an attache. When the father of the informant protested, he was stabbed with a knife. On hearing the alarm raised by the children, Narayana Routh, the brother of the informant came. One Kedara Sahu and Baishnaba Rana chased the accused persons and caught hold of four of the accused persons, while others fled away. On the matter being reported, investigation was taken up and charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 147 /148/452/324/366/149/511 of the I.P.C.

3. The case of the defense was one of complete denial and false implication.

4. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, of whom P.W.7, the informant, P.W.5, informant’s father and injured, P.W.10, wife of the informant, P.W.4, the brother of the informant are the material witnesses. Several documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 7/1, of which Exts.3 and 4, the injury reports of P.W.4 and P.W.10, Ext.2 the written report are of significance.

Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defense.

5. On considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court while acquitting the other four accused persons, found the accused- Petitioner No.1 guilty of the of