BHUPATI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment and order dated 28.06.1985 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1984 (Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1985) convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years has been challenged.

(2.) Prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant, is that on 8/9th November, 1982 a dacoity was committed in the house of Anil Chandra Mahato (PW 1). PW 1 was sleeping in the middle room of his house. His elder brother Nagen Mahato (since deceased) and cousin brother Subhas Mahato (PW 5) were lying in the open verandah. On hearing the sound of breaking of the gate, PW 1 came out to the courtyard with torchlight. He found that 14/15 miscreants including the appellant were entering his house. By focusing the torchlight, he recognised Bhupati Roy of village Loharsole and one Bibhuti Gope of village Chakirban. He raised alarm and then fled away. The appellant along others entered inside the house and took away cash, ornaments, utensils and other articles. The dacoits also tied Subhas Mahato (PW 5) and Nagen Mahato with a rope, but subsequently they managed to escape. The dacoits also hurled bombs at the time of commission of dacoity. When the dacoits came out, PW 1 along with some villagers chased the dacoits but they fled away. On 9.11.1982 at 12.15 P.M. FIR was lodged by PW 1 resulting in registration of Purulia (M) P.S. Case No. 9 dated 9.11.1982 under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of investigation, police seized various articles including broken boxes etc. Police also seized remnants of bombs and one unexploded bomb along with other articles. Police also seized a torch light from PW 6 (Nunaram Mahato). In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charge under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code was framed.

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It was the specific case of the appellant that he had a quarrel with PW 1 over the selling of some rationed commodities in black market and as a result he had been falsely implicated in the instant case.