JUDGMENT
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 30th June, 1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Phulbani convicting the appellants under Section 394/34, IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
2. The accusation against the appellants was that on 9-9-1988 at about 9 p.m. while P.W, 6 Jogendra Pradhan was coming on road by a cycle from Boudh Block Office with his salary of Rs. 780.00 in his pocket, they robbed the said amount from him by causing grievous hurt on his left hand by a ‘Kati’ in furtherance of their common object. Hearing the cry of P.W. 6 while his son-in-law, the informant P.W. 1, and others came to the spot, they found P.W. 6 lying on the road with bleeding injury and the appellants running away. FIR being lodged with Boudh P.S., the officers of that police station conducted investigation, got injured Jogendra medically examined, seized the blood-stained clothes and earth, and the appellants having absconded from village, arrested them subsequently. Charge-sheet for alleged commission of offences under Sections 398/394/ 34 having been filed, the case was committed to the Court of Session and the appellants faced trial in that Court. The defence of the appellants was complete denial of the occurrence and/or their false implication in the case. In order to establish its case, prosecution got ten witnesses examined besides exhibiting ten documents and producing seven material objects. The trial Court after discussing the evidence in details found the appellants guilty of the charge under Section 394/34, IPC. Convicting the appellants of the said charge the trial Court has sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years as stated above.
3. This Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the State and perused the materials available on record. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 6 was the injured himself, P.W. 1 was the informant, P.W. 2 was the Medical Officer of the Sub-divisional Hospital, Boudh, who had examined P.W. 6 on requisition and P.W. 3 was the Pharmacist in the said Hospital, P.Ws. 4 and 5 who were said to be the post-occurrence witnesses and had rushed to the spot shearing the cry of the injured and to have seen the injured lying on the ground with bleeding injury while the appellants were fleeing away, turned hostile to the prosecution, P.W. 7 was the I.O. being the OIC of Boudh P.S. P.W. 10 was an ASI of the Boudh P.S. who had conducted major part of the investigation whereafter P.W. 7 had taken over charge thereof. P.W. 9 was a Teacher of an Upper Primary School and,- P.W. 8 was an independent witness who had deposed that immediately after hearing the cry of injured P.W. 6 he had rushed to the spot when P.W. 6 told him about the aforesaid overt acts of the appellants. He has stated to have lifted the injured from the ground at the spot of occurrence with the help of some others and took him to his house whereafter P.W. 1, the son-in-law of P.W. 6, removed P.W. 6 to Hospital in Ambulance.
4. The injured P.W. 6 in his deposition in Court has made graphic details of the entire incident as to how the appellants intercepted him, dealt Kati blow on his person and robbed from his pocket an amount of Rs. 876.00 which was his monthly salary as Headmaster of an Upper Primary School; how P.W. 8 and others had lifted him from the spot of occurrence where he was lying with bleeding injury and that the appellants fled away from the spot seeing the witnesses. P.W. 2 who was the Medical Officer of S.D. Hospital, Boudh and had examined P.W. 6 on police requisition. He stated to have issued the injury report Ext. 2 indicating “a cut injury of 6” x bone deep situated two inches below the left elbow joint on the outer aspect encircling the left forearm which, he opined, might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon like Kati. The other injury sustained by P.W. 6 was a fracture on the upper third of left radius bone which was grievous and in the opinion of P.W. 2 might have also been caused by a weapon like Kati. The evidence of these vital witnesses has not been shaken on cross-examination. Besides a series of medical papers were exhibited in the case and the material objects like bloodstained wearing apparels of the injured P.W. 6 and X-ray plates were produced before the Court by the prosecution. This Court finds that all these materials amply establish the charge against We appellants under Section 394/34, IPC and the trial Court has rightly held so. The trial Court has also rightly held that Section 398, IPC was not attracted in the case.
5. It is revealed from the evidence of the witnesses that appellant-Kalia alias Subas Chandra Pradhan is the son of P.W. 6’s younger brother and the other appellant-Pramod Pradhan is the son of a cousin of P.W. 6. Both the appellants were the students of P. W. 6 who was the Headmaster of the school where they were studying. P.W. 6 was an elderly person. The trial Court has held, that while the relationship of the appellants with P.W. 6 was such, there was no reason why P.W. 6 would falsely implicate the appellants to have robbed money from him causing grievous injuries on his person by Kati blow. The trial Court has held that the evidence of P.W. 6 was clear, positive, reliable and worthy of credence. This Court after scanning through the evidence finds that the trial. Court has justly held so. The charge of having committed offence under Section 394/34, IPC being found to be well-established against the appellants, and their conviction under the said charge being also well-founded, this Court confirms the same.
6. However, with regard to sentence of the appellants, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellants were very young, being 23 years, at the time of alleged occurrence, i.e. in the year 1988, and that though the Criminal Appeal was filed in time the same is pending for the last eighteen (eighteen) years for no fault of the appellants, this Court feels that instead of rigorous imprisonment for two years, such imprisonment for six months besides a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 (two thousand) each will serve the ends of justice. This Court therefore while confirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 394/34, IPC modifies the sentence imposed on them by the trial Court by reducing the period of rigorous imprisonment from two years to six months and besides imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 (two thousand) against each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months. Out of the fine amounts realized, Rs. 3,000.00 shall be paid to victim P.W. 6 by the trial Court. The bail-bonds of the appellants stand cancelled and the Court below is directed to take steps for their immediate apprehension to serve the sentence.
The Criminal Appeal is thus disposed of.