BAIGAN TURIYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the appellant and the State.

(2.) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 395 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

(3.) HOWEVER, taking into consideration the evidence the informant says that the accused persons came and demanded and asked to open the door. P.W. 1 is the wife of the informant said that she came at the time when she was not slept and Baigan Turiya demanded todi and when she refused that there is no todi. She has, further, stated that he has covered his face, however, if he has covered his face then the identification becomes doubtful. Moreover, there is contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 whereas P.W. 3 says that wife was sleeping whereas wife says that she was going to sleeping. More over, the three witnesses examined are all the family members, no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case about the dacoity though the evidence of the prosecution that after the commission of dacoity, on hulla several people came, but, none has come to support the prosecution case. The investigation also did not find anything supportive nor any objective found in the evidence of the investigating officer about the occurrence and prosecution has admitted about the quarrel with regard to the grazing of the goat of Jagdish Turiya. HOWEVER, no looted articles have been recovered.