LAWS(ALL)-1992-5-44

RAHIMAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Decided On May 13, 1992
RAHIMAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur convicting and sentencing appellant to undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment under S.395, I.P.C. and imprisonment for life under S.396, I.P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that at about 1.30 a.m. in the night between 3/4-9-1977 six to seven dacoits entered into the house of Raisa Khatoon and Azizun. They committed dacoity in the houses and looted properties. It was alleged that there was a Dibbi burning in front of the house of Azizun and a lantern was burning in front of the house of Raisa Khatoon situated in village Amaun, P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur. During the dacoity the dacoits fired towards witnesses. Mohd. Yusuf received serious injuries and later on died. The other persons also received gun shot wounds. It was alleged that during the dacoity a heap of paddy straw (payal) was put to fire. This created ample light enabling the witnesses to recognise the dacoits. The dacoits were unknown persons and the witnesses had seen them during the course of committing dacoity.

(3.) After the occurrence Buddhu along with Raisa Khatoon and Shafi Mohammad went to P.S. Khaga and lodged the first information report at 4 a.m. After lodging of report the investigation was taken up by Bhushan Singh, Station Officer, P.W. 8. He had made the usual investigation prepared the inquest report of the dead body, collected the empty cartridges, one lathi, sample ash, blood stained and plain earth from the spot. The appellant was arrested in the night between 8 and 9/09/1977 and brought to the police station at 3.30 a.m. in Beparda condition and kept in the lock up. Thereafter he was sent to the District Jail in a veiled condition. His identification was conducted in the District Jail on 4-11-1977 by Executive Magistrate, K. B. Srivastava, P.W. 4. Out of 8 witnesses sent for identification only 5 had identified the appellant. Thereafter a chargesheet was submitted.