(Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Satyanarayan Mallick and Another ___________________ Appellant(s);
v.
State of Odisha ___________________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 226 of 2018 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8366 of 2017], decided on February 6, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The two accused appellants who have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life are in appeal before us.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the State.
4. P.W. 2 – Sangram Kesari Baral is the only eye-witness. According to him, the accused numbered about seventeen (17) out of which he has named four persons but not the accused appellants. P.W.1 – Ramakrishna Misra who is the first informant, though had named the accused appellants in the First Information Report (FIR), stated in his deposition that he was informed by P.W.2 of the involvement of the accused appellants in the crime. If P.W.2 himself had not mentioned the names of the two accused appellants before us in his evidence we do not see how the names of the two accused appellants could have been incorporated in the FIR by the P.W.1 – first informant. The fact that the names of the appellants were mentioned in the FIR seems to have been the sole basis of the conviction of the accused appellants. Mere mention of the names of the two accused appellants by P.W. 1 in the FIR and that too in the circumstances noted above would hardly be sufficient or adequate evidence to hold the two accused appellants guilty of the offence, particularly, in a situation where the sole eye-witness P.W.2 does not name the accused appellants in any manner.
5. The order of the High Court, therefore, appears to be wholly incorrect. We, consequently, set aside the same and allow this appeal. The accused appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. They be released from custody forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other case.
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 8366/2017
Satyanarayan Mallick & Anr _________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
The State of Odisha ________________________________ Respondent
Date: 06-02-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. R.K. Dash, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suchit Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Lal Das, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
6. Leave granted.
7. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
8. The accused appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. They be released from custody forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other case.
———
