The court ruled that a conviction based on flawed and mechanically affirmed evidence lacks foundation, warranting reversal under revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

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

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 09.01.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.15/160 of 1999/02 affirming the order of conviction qua the Petitioners dated 23.07.1999 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Anandapur in S.T. Case No.62/175 of 1997 under Section 399 /402 of IPC and imposing sentence to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 (Four) years on each count and with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The allegation against the present Petitioners is that they (all the six Petitioners) had congregated in the river-bed and were nabbed at the time when they were trying to commit dacoity in the house of one Mayadhar Ratha of Village Angarua. It is also the case of the prosecution that several incriminating weapons and other materials were seized from the Petitioners.

3. To fortify their charge under Section 399 /402 of IPC , the prosecution examined seven witnesses of which P.W.5, the I.O. and P.W.4, an independent witness to seizure are of significance. Several documents were adduced on behalf of the prosecution and marked as Exts.1 to 4, and eighteen material objects (M.Os.) were also exhibited.

Neither oral nor documentary proof was adduced on behalf of defense.

Relying on the basis of evidence as adduced and referring to the exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution and negating the defence plea of false implication, the learned Trial Court recorded order of conviction under Section 399 /402 of IPC and directed the Petitioners to undergo R.I. for a period of four years on each count with a further stipulation that the sentences are to run concurrently.

4. The appeal of the Petitioner having been dismissed by the judgment dated 09.01.2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.15/160 of 1999/02, the present Criminal Revision has been preferred.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the State places on record the instruction received from I.I.C. Anandapur P.S. indicating that Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 5 (Sri Krushna Chandra Das @ Senapati, Maheswar Naik, Muralidhar Mahanta respectively) have passed away on the dates indicated therein. Copy of the said instruction is taken on record.

6. Since there is no motion on their behalf for continuance of the revision, the CRLREV stands abated against the said Petitioners and the present Criminal Revision is confined to Petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 6.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that there are gaping holes in the case of the prosecution, which were brought out in the evidence of the official witnesses, however ignoring the same and adopting the theory that P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are responsible high officials of the police department, the order of conviction is recorded.

8. To substantiate such submission, the attention of this Court is drawn to the cross-examination of P.W.1 with regard to the place of occurrence and that the Petitioners, who are the accused persons, were detained even before the raiding party arrived at the designated spot, as per the prosecution.

9. It is apt to note that the same was confronted to P.W.5, the I.O., and in the factual matrix of the case at hand, referring to the spot map (Ext.4), it is submitted with vehemence that the distance between the bus stand and the river bed is 500 meter, which is material in the circumstances and has not been taken into account by the learned Trial Court. Another feature relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae is the evidence of the independent witness, P