BABLOO VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment passed by 8th Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger, in Cr. Appeal no. 19/99 whereby appellate court confirmed the judgment of the trial court passed in GR no. 192/96 Tr. no. 305/98.

(2.) THE trial court convicted the revisionist under sections 379 and 461 IPC and sentenced him to 3 years and 2 years SI under both the above sections. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentences passed under sections 379 and 461 IPC, but reduced the sentence awarded under both above sections to one year each.

(3.) FOUR witnesses were examined in the trial court. PW 1 was present on the alleged night i.e. 31st 30. January, 1996 and had heard the sound of Khat Khat. Then he saw the revisionist -accused who fled away. Thereafter in the morning the accused appeared before PW 1 and threatened him on the point of fire arm not to disclose the offence. PW 2 was informant himself. PWs 3 and 4 had learnt about the occurrence from PW1 and who failed to support the alleged occurrence of learning from PW 1. PW 4 said that there was some kind of occurrence from Kiosk of PW 2 but he did not have 35. any personal knowledge. PW 3 was declared hostile because he did not support the fact that he had Sugriv Mahto Versus State Of Bihar learnt anything from PW 1. So on record, there is evidence of PW 1 only. So far PW 1 is concerned, he at least supported the fact that in the relevant night he heard the sound of Khat -Khat and then he challenged the man who fled away and he was identified as accused -revisionist. In the next morning the revisionist appeared before him and threatened.