KAPPORCHAND CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals arise from a common judgment dated 28/02/1990 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 298/113 of 1988/1989, by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.

(2.) The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass which can be narrated with bravity. Kalian Bus bearing No. BHG 4911 while going from Arrah to Sasaram on 2/02/1986 was intercepted in the midway by unknown criminals near village Tarah who pointed their guns at the driver and desisted him from moving the vehicle further. Shortly after the vehicle was stopped, it was alleged that miscreants ransacked the occupants of the vehicle, robbed their belongings which includes coats, cash, wrist watch, attache, spectacles, woollen shawl etc. and escaped with the booties and thereafter the driver took the bus to Mokha police station where on strength of statement of Dudheswar Lal, driver of the bus, a police case had been instituted and the investigation commenced. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of the wit- nesses, put suspects on test identification parade, seized some stolen articles including the coat from the person of Mahendra Chaudhary and on explanation of investigation laid charge-sheet in the Court against the appellants and Dinanath Tiwary, Randhani Singh and Shyam Bihari Choudhary. At trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses and the trial Court placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the witnesses including that of the victims, police officers and also a Judicial Magistrate who conducted T.I.P., rendered verdict of guilt, convicted the appellants, acquitting rest of them, and sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years under S. 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The finding recorded by the trial Court has been assailed by the counsel for the appellants on premises that as Didheshwar Lal, the author of the early version of the prosecution was not examined at trial, all credibility of the prosecution case was lost. The contention was raised that though Raghubansh Prasad Singh was also suggested to have participated in the test identification parade that was held in jail premises on 14/02/1986, the said Rajbansh Prasad Singh for the reasons best known to the prosec}tion, was not examined at the trial and in this backdrop if identification of the appellant Kapoorchand Chaudhary shown to have been made by the said Raghubansh Prasad Singh during the test identification parade was excluded from consideration, the sole testimony of Kishun Singh was left on the record which would not sustain conviction of the appellant in absence of corroboration from any sources. The contentions were raised on behalf of appellant Mahendra Chaudhary that the complicity of the appellant was suggested on solitary testimony of Sri B. K. Sahay, P.W. 1 who claims to have identified the appellant Mahendra Choudhary while he was allegedly moving in the premises of Court of Subdivisional Magistrate on 15/02/1986. Learned counsel urged that even if the prosecution version about identification of Mahendra Chaudhary by Sri Braj Kumar Sahay with the aid of cost that the appellant had put on his person and said to be belonging to Sri Braj Kumar Sahay was considered to be true on its face value, such identification of the appellant by a witness after lapse of a fortnight of incident would not inspire confidence and the prosecution version on this score must be considered to be incredible and the last argument canvassed on behalf of Kapoorchand Chaudhary was that as it was suggested to the witnesses who claimed to have identified the appellant during test identification parade that the appellant was shown to the identifying witnesses proceeding holding of test identification parade while being brought to Hajat from the jail, the significance of the test identification parade is completely lost.