SHIV RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shiv Ram. Ram Khelawan, Usman Khan and Shabbir Khan have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31-8-1984 of Sri R.N. Sharma. I Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur passed in Sessions Trial No. 271. The appellants have been convicted under section 395. IPC and sentenced to five years R.I. house of informant Munna Lal is situated towards south of the Abadi of Village Bhadevar and his house faces east. House of Pirthi is situated towards north-east of the house of Munna Lal. There are of her houses in the vicinity. It is alleged that on 28-5-1981 at about 8.30 p.m. when Munna Lal was sitting outside the house and his wife was teathering the buffalo near the cattle troughs and Smt. Bindeshwari Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi were cooking food inside the house about 8 or 9 miscreants reached his house and inquired about Bachey Lal son of the informant impersonating as police party and said that the SubInspector had come to search for Bachey Lal in connection with a murder case. Bachey Lal was not at the house. Some of the miscreants entered the house while 3 or 4 remained outside and committed dacoity in the house. The dacoits were identified in the light of lantern and torch. After committing dacoity the miscreants left the scene. The F.I.R. was lodged on 29-5-1981 at P.S. Machhrehta naming Allan Khan. Shabbir. Usman Khan. Kishore. Ram Khilawan and Sheo Ram, who according to the informant were known to him from before the incident. Out of these named accused Allan Khan has died while Kishore has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. It may be mentioned here that out of the appellants appellants Sheo Ram. Ram Khilawan belonged to informants Village Bhadevar while Usman and Shabbir Khan belonged to nearby Village Usmanpur.

(2.) After usual investigation the appellants were charge-sheeted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. At the trial, the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In support of its case the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Munna Lal. P.W. 2 Ram Lal P.W. 3 Ram Lotan and P.W. 4 Saheb Dayal as eye witnesses of the incident. Of these, Ram Lotan (P.W.3) and Saheb Dayal (P.W. 4) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. P.W. 5 Ravindra Pratap Yadav had investigated the case and his evidence is more or less of formal nature.