Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The two revisions having been arisen from a common judgment and the Advocates in both the revisions being same, the same are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that on 2.8.1990 at about 4 P.M. while P.Ws. 2 and 5, two constables of Tusura Police Station were escorting the accused persons under one handcuff to a Court in Bolangir, in a bus after the name of Sibani, on the way, when the bus halted at Deogaon Bus Stand, they fled away with the handcuff. P.Ws. 2 and 5 chased to apprehend them, but failed. So, both of them lodged a written report before the O.I.C. of Tusura Police Station. As the allegation contained in the report, which was treated as F.I.R. revealed a cognizable case under Sections 224/34 of I.P.C., the O.I.C. registered Tusura P.S. Case No. 72 of 1990 and directed the S.I. of Police, P.W. 9 to investigate into the case. Accordingly P.W. 9 investigated into it and in course of investigation, examined the witnesses, seized the key of the handcuff, prepared seizure list in respect thereof and after completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, submitted charge sheet against them under Sections 379/224/34 of I.P.C. However, the accused persons were charged under Sections 224/34 only and on denial of the charge, faced the trial before the J.M.F.C, Bolangir.

7. Even though P.W. 9, the I.O. in his evidence before the Trial Court stated that he seized the command certificate and prepared seizure list in respect thereof, it has not been proved. So, the very genesis of the prosecution case that P.Ws. 2 and 5 being duly commanded were escorting the petitioners to a Court at Bolangir creates a doubt. The evidence on record is silent with regard to the place where P.Ws. 2 and 5 and the petitioners boarded the bus

8. Similarly their evidence is silent with regard to the Court to which the petitioners were being escorted. The handcuff with which the petitioners were said to have been locked has not been recovered. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 5 and 7, that while both petitioners were handcuffed with one handcuff, they could manage to escape from the bus stop and they (the constables) chased but could not apprehend them appears to be improbable. Had the handcuff been seized and proved it would have lent some support to the prosecution case, but the same has not been seized. The evidence of P.W. 9 is conspicuously silent as to whether he tried to seize the handcuff. So, the finding of the trial Court that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 & 5 being cogent and consistent in nature and having been corroborated by P.W. 7, an independent witness, establish the guilt of the petitioners cannot stand to judicial scrutiny.