MANNU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Sri B.D. Shukla, III Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur dated 6.4.1979 convicting the appellant Munnu under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous, imprisonment for five years. The fact that there was a dacoity at the house of Rajdeo in the night between December 5 & 6, 1977 at about 11.00 p.m. cannot be doubted in view of the injuries sustained by the complainer Rajdeo and his family member Subedar and Sheo Prasad and the statement of Sri Kishan Singh S.0. Bimo about the condition of the house of the complainant and the place where he had found the looted articles. The prosecution witnesses Rajdeo Complainant P.W. 1 and Ram Chandra P.W. 2 had also narrated as to how the dacoits numbering 11 to 12 armed with lethal weapons had committed dacoity causing injuries to the complainant and two other persons named above who were prevented by the people of the village from running away with the valuables and one of them who was the appellant had been apprehended when he stumbled and fell down. Even Kedar D.W. 1 did not deny this part of the prosecution story that there was a dacoity in the village Nasratpur.

(2.) The appellant had taken the defence that his cow being in heat had fled away and he had gone in search of it and the people of the village Nasratpur suspecting him to have been involved in the dacoity in question arrested him and falsely roped him in this case. He, in defence, had examined Kedar who pointed that he had also gone to the village wherein dacoity was being committed along with Munnu and many others on hearing forbore but the villagers suspecting Munnu to be a dacoit falsely implicated him in this case and did not listen to his words about his innocence.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed this circumstance against the appellant that he could not have gone so far away in search of his cow in a wintry night. He has also pointed that the appellant Munnu had in para 7 of his bail application, denied his arrest at the place of occurrence but pointed to have been arrested by the police while be was going in search of his cow. The witness examined by the appellant had given out that he and the appellant and many others had, gone to the village Nasratpur. Had it been so, the appellant could not have been taken into custody and some application would have been given to the higher authorities by the D.W. or by any of the other persons regarding the false implication of the appellant. The prosecution witnesses stated to have perused the appellant from the house of the complainant upto to the place where he was arrested. There was thus no question of the appellant having been involved in this case on the ground of suspicion. The non production of the lathi which the appellant was alleged to be carrying had hardly any bearing on the case. The appellant had been rightly convicted and sentenced under section 395 I.P.C. The appeal has no force. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under section 395, I.P.C. and the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded in him are maintained. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. Let him be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Call for compliance repot from the court concerned in this regard within three months from today. Appeal dismissed.