RAM DHARI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMDHARI Ram appellant is a police constable. At the time of occurrence he was admittedly posted at out post Civil Lines in the city of Bahraich. The appellant, along with one more constable of his out-post namely Narendra Pratap Mishra, and a constable of police lines Bahraich namely Kapil Deo Pathak, was put up for trial u/Sec. 395/397 IPC before the I st Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich. Que Girwar, who was not in police service, was also put up for trial along with them. The learned Judge did not believe the participation of constable Narendra Pratap Mishra, constable Kapil Deo Pathak and Girwar in the alleged dacoity and he acquitted them. The appellant was, however held guilty under Section 395/397 IPC and was sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved by that order of the learned Sessions Judge the appellant has come to this Court.

(2.) IT has not been disputed before me that an armed dacoity was committed at the house of Bhola Nath PW 1 in village Shah Newazpur within the circle of police station Gilaula in the district of Bahraich at about midnight of 23/24-4-1974. The dacoits were 11 or 12 in number. One of them was armed with a gun and others were armed with other weapons. The dacoits beat inmates of Bhola Nath's house and looted property. When they were decamping an encounter took place amongst the villagers and the dacoits in the field of one Dhan Raj where the clip of the gun of the dacoit, who held a gun, fell down. That clip is known as "chap". The dacoits, however, made good their escape along with their booty. A report of the occurrence was lodged by Bhola Nath at the police station next day. No dacoit was named therein as all the dacoits were unknown to the compnant and other villagers. Investigation of the case was taken over by the police.

(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution evidence about the above noted circumstances was not believable and even if those circumstances are believed they are equally compatible with the hypothesis that the appellant was not amongst the dacoits and that only his gun was used by some dacoit in that dacoity. I find force in this contention.