- (1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 7th September, 2002 and 11th September 2002 respectively, by Sri Akhileshwar Jha, Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. II, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 299 of 1990, whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty for committing the offence under Sections 382 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo S.I. For 3 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/(one thousand) and in default, to undergo S.I. for two months for the offence under Section 382 IPC and S.I. for 3 years for the offence under Section 411 IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Mukul Sundi (PW2) a security personnel of TISCO, lodged a written report before the Police that when he entered into the TISCO premises on 01/09/1986 at about 9.50 p.m., on his scooter to join his 'C' shift duty, he saw that a man (appellant) was also going on scooter bearing registration no. BRX4850 with moderate speed looking left and right. The informant got suspicion. After gearing up the speed of his scooter, the informant reached near to that man and located that the said man was a habitual thief Leo Farnandis (the appellant). On the footmat of the scooter something was loaded in the bag and in a Jhola also some materials were kept. The informant tried to catch hold the hand of the appellant. In this process, both the scooters lost their balances and fell down. Thereafter, the appellant threw his Helmet on the informant but the informant saved himself. After that, the appellant fled away in the dark towards Blast Furnace leaving his scooter and the materials in the bag. The informant chased the appellant after raising alarm. The appellant took out a knife from his waist and wanted to give a blow but the informant saved himself. On hearing alarm, the driver of the Department Bankey Bihar (PW1) alongwith patrolling Jeep carrying Bhanu Pratap Singh (PW3), Hari Shankar Singh and Rang Bahadur Singh (PW4) came to his help. They also saw the appellant fleeing away carrying a Jhola but taking advantage of darkness, he fled away. They saw that four persons assembled in a place and the appellant met with them. Out of them, one person fired two rounds towards the informant party but that did not hit them. On this, PW3 Bhanu Pratap Singh, fired one round, which hit a person and he was caught, who disclosed his name as Dwarika Nath Prasad (tried separately). The thieves were identified as Babu Lal of Mango, Annu @ Monabar Khan and Mohar Rao of Adityapur (all are acquitted). The bag, which was lying near the scooter, contained two steel block worth about Rs. 1350/. As the appellant was an exemployee, he was aware of all the ways of the Company and, therefore, taking advantage of this, he succeeded in fleeing away when chased by the security personnels. It was further alleged that earlier also the appellant was apprehended four times with different vehicles, for which other cases were registered. It was further alleged that the stolen materials were sold to Dilawar Khan of Sakchi Tank Market from where previously the stolen materials of TISCO were recovered. The informant handed over the said scooter and stolen articles to the OfficerinCharge. Mr. A.K.Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that there is major contradictions in the evidence. He further submitted that the appellant was in service from 1972 and there was nothing against him till 1984, when he was dismissed from service on the allegation of theft but, ultimately, he was reinstated under the orders of a Labour Court. Thereafter, he was falsely involved in several criminal cases of similar nature with similar allegations. However, he was acquitted in all of them. It is also submitted that this case was also lodged only with a view to keep the appellant away from service. He lastly submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned APP supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.;