RAM SAGAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Sagar and Brikshpal are the appellants in this appeal, who are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21-8-81 passed by Sri M. S. Premi, III Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, convicting them under Section 395, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00. In default of payment of fine, each of them has to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. Three Sessions Trials No. 74 of 1981, 77 of 1981 and 101 of 1981 were tried together. One Chandra Prakash was accused in S. T. No. 74 of 1981 with the appellant Ram Sagar. Appellant Brikshpal was accused in S. T. No. 77 of 1981. There was one Ram Pal accused in S. T. No. 101 of 1981. Chandra Prakash and Ram Pal were acquitted.

(2.) An armed dacoity as committed in between the night of 12/ 13/05/1977 close to midnight by 11-12 desperadoes at the house of PW-1 Sonpal, in village Harha Purwa, a Hamlet of village Ismailpur, Police Station Gurusahai Ganj, District Farrkhabad. The same night, the dacoits also committed dacoity at the houses of Sone Lal Pradhan, Lal Ram and Ram Babu. It so happened that PW-1 Sonpal and his brother Natthu singh were sleeping in their Baithak and a lantern was glowing as usual, when 11-12 armed dacoits appeared there. Four of them had torches and guns and rest were armed with countrymade pistols. One of them had a cane stick also. They surrounded the two brothers and commanded them to get the door of the house opened. Four of them, who had guns, scaled the back wall and reached the roof. The women folk and children opened the door. The dacoits barged inside and started looting. Those on the roof were flashing their torches and opening shots. The shouts attracted Sarnam Singh, Sobaran Singh, PW-2 Ram Babu, Lala Ram and Veer Bhan. The two brothers somehow reached the door of Pradhan. Veerbhan set fire to the Patel (dry leaves) heaped there which produced a flood of right. Pradhan Sone Lal and Veerbhan had torches also. In the light produced by the fire set to Patel and in the light of torches, the dacoits were allegedly very well seen. Sobran Singh, Sarnam Singh and PW-2 Ram Babu had received injuries also in such incident of dacoity. The appellant Ram Sagar was named in the F.I.R. and the case against the appellant Brikshpal is based on identification, he having been arrested in a case under Section 307, I.P.C. and his complicity having come to light. He was lodged in jail on 28-6-1977 and was subjected to identification on 15-9-1977. At the identification parade, two witnesses, namely, PW-1 Sonpal and PW-2 Ram Babu correctly identified him. At the trial, in all five witnesses were examined including these two.

(3.) The defence of the appellant Ram Sagar who was named in the F.I.R., was that the witnesses knew him from before and that he had a dispute with the complainant and other witnesses over the Mend of his field and for this reason he had been falsely implicated. On the other hand, the contention of the appellant Brikshpal was that he had been arrested from his house at 8 A.M. and was kept at police station for two days. According to him, his photo had been taken and he was also shown to the witnesses.