BAKER ALI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants have been convicted under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Katihar in S. Tr. No. 79/1991/109/1996 by a judgment dated 27.02.1997.

(2.) The case of the prosecution according to informant Sk. Riyesat is that while he was going along with other persons some unknown miscreants waylaid them and committed robbery and fled away. Later in the way on the basis of physical features of the miscreants the informant then visited the house of one Mofizuddin from where allegedly Md. Nurul accused fled away. They were assured by Mofizuddin that they would get their belongings back. At around 4 P.M. when the informant and others reached Gasiaghat they found one of the miscreants who was caught in chase and he disclosed his name as Md. Mustaque and the names of others. Accused Bakar Ali is said to have returned the wrist watch of the informant before the institution of the present case.

(3.) During trial the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses out of whom P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 14 and P.W. 15 have been declared hostile whereas P.W. 1 is a formal witness. P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 have failed to identify any one. P.W. 11 is the sole witness on the point of identification. He has stated the names of the accused persons but it does not stand to reason as to why he did not disclose the names of the accused persons before institution of the case. It is relevant that in the First Information Report the names of the accused persons have been disclosed on the basis of the statement having been made by accused Md. Mustaque. P.W. 12 who also disclosed the names of the accused has not been relied upon by the Trial Court.