RAM NATH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conviction of the appellant under Section 396 IPC initially visited him with a life sentence, as ordered by the Court of Session, but on appeal to the High Court, it was reduced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) It was a night robbery in a running train. The appellant was allegedly one of the dacoits. A person was killed during the course of commission of dacoity and the dacoits caused hurts to others and looted their property. P.W.6, Diwakar Yadav, was one such person who was robbed. The Train Ticket Examiner, P.W.3, was also one of the occupants in the train who was injured. The occurrence took place shortly after the train left Katihar station for its onward journey to Calcutta. This incident happened in the State of Bihar. The matter was reported to the police by P.W. 3. The appellant was later arrested as one of the culprits. He was put to identification parade conducted by Judicial Magistrate. Bharatji Misra, P.W.7. Thereat, P.W. 6 was able to identify the appellant as one of the dacoits besides others, with whom we are presently not concerned with, and claimed that he was the one who had a revolver with him which he employed during the course of the occurrence.

(3.) At the trial P.W.7 fully supported the prosecution case, deposing that P.W. 6 had before him identified the appellant as the dacoit carrying a revolver. P.W.6, however, chose not to identify the appellant at the trial and rather said that he could not recognise the accused whom he had identified at the identification parade. When his pointed attention was drawn towards the appellant, he did not identify him. At that juncture, the trial Judge recorded his remarks as to his demeanour that the witness perhaps was afraid of the accused as he was trembling at the stare of Ram Nath, accused. It thus became evident that the witness was frightened to accord recognition to the appellant at the trial. Despite such bend in the prosecution case, the trial Court as also the High Court relied on the statement of the Magistrate, P.W.7 as to P.W.6 having identified the appellant before him at the identification parade and held the prosecution case proved beyond doubt. Added thereto was the remark of the trial Court about the demeanour of the witness P.W.6.