MD AKBAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT along with Md. Isha and Munna alias Baltha was tried for an offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the trial Court, suspecting complicity of Md. Isha and Munna alias Baltha while acquitted them of the charges, rendered verdict of guilt against the appellant finding him guilty under Section 395 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years.

(2.) SHORN of details, the first information report of the case was drawn up on the strength of fardbeyan of Jaldhari Mahto (PW 10) alleging therein that on 28th of November, 1988, miscreants including the appellant ransacked some petty shops and gumti in the vicinity of Dipak Cinema at Muzaffarpur, did assault the shopkeepers, scattered their belongings here and there and relieved them of the sale proceeds. After the Police was set in motion, investigation commenced. During pendency of investigation Police recorded statement of witnesses and laid charge sheet before the Court and the appellant, along with others on being committed to the Court of Session, was eventually put on trial. In the eventual trial, the State examined altogether ten witnesses and those examined by the prosecution include also some of the petty shopkeepers who allied to have been relieved of their sale proceeds by the miscreants.

(3.) NOW adverting to the evidence led on behalf of the State, one would find that Ram Ekbal Singh (PW 1), Md. Aslam (PW 2), Md. Karim Akhtar (PW 3), and Jagaranth Mahto (PW 8) had turned volte face to the prosecution lending no assurance to the prosecution assertion about any dacoity committed in the shops which situate near Dipak Cinema and their attentions were consequently drawn towards early version which they rendered before the Police. Ayuub (PW 4) and Ritlal Mahto (PW 9) were tendered by the prosecution and there was nothing material in their evidences to merit consideration. Now, prosecution is left with the evidence of Raghunath Kunwar (PW 5), Sohan Sah (PW 6), Babuni Devi (PW 7) and Jaldhari Mahto (PW 10) to lend corroboration in support of the allegations that were attributed to the appellant. Raghunath Kunwar (PW 5) has a shop in the vicinity of Dipak Cinema and he would state that the miscreants visited premises taking recourse to firing and relieved his father of the sale proceeds. The shops of others were also ransacked by them who were relieved of their sale proceeds. The witnesses claimed to have identified only the appellant. Sohan Sah (PW 6) also has his shop near Dipak Cinema. He would state that the miscreants came exploding bombs and they scattered the belongings of the shops and relieved him of the sale proceeds of the day. He too claimed to have identified only the appellant. This witness was not examined by the defence and hence there was no mitigating evidence on record to controvert the accusations attributed to the appellant. Babuni Devi (PW 7) sells groundnuts beside Dipak Cinema and she too was made victim of the wrath of the miscreants on that day when they ransacked several shops. She too claimed to have identified only the appellant among them. Jaldhari Mahto (PW 10) was the person who set the Police in motion and he would reiterate the narrations made by him before the Police about the miscreants having ransacked the shops that situates in the vicinity of Dipak Cinema. The miscreants were exploding bombs and relieved the shopkeepers of the sale proceeds. He stated to have suffered a loss of Rs. 362/ - at the hands of miscreants. He too claimed to have identified only the appellant. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. The defence too examined one witness, namely, Md. Salim to show that the case was instituted by the informant at the instance of one Rajkumar.