RAMDEO PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals have been preferred by appellants aforementioned, assailing order of conviction dated 29th June, 2005 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 2003/Trial No. 513 of 2005 arising out of Katoriya P.S. Case No. 158 of 2002.

(2.) CHUHA Mandal, appellant no. 3 of Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 2005 stands convicted for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Whereas, rest of the six appellants stand convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 364, 120(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have respectively been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, all the sentences are to run concurrently.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with other materials, Exhibit - 9, Sanha Entry No. 243 recorded at 10.30 A.M. on 15.10.2002 appears relevant for consideration. It goes to show that one Bhim Pandit (not examined) son of Ram Prasad Pandit of village Domkatta, P.S. Katoriya alongwith other villagers arrived at police station and just informed the police authority that some armed miscreants have surrounded village Domkatta from east, any untowards incident may take place. The authorities on recording such statement immediately rushed towards village Domkatta. This goes to show that police was informed about some gatherings, anticipating some untowards happenings, compelling the police party to rush and arrive at village Domkatta, where as per Exhibit - 3, the fardbeyan of P.W. 2 Chhedi Pandit was recorded at about 11.30 A.M. by Sub-Inspector, Ram Prasad Ram (not examined), but P.W. 2, the informant who in his examination-in-chief tried to state about the occurrence, while saying that at about 9.00 A.M. his son Bal Kishore Pandit (deceased) had gone to tie she-goat at a short distance from the house. Appellant no. 1 Kamal Mandal arrived at his door, went near his son and when he (son) responded his call, said Kamal Mandal asked him to accompany up to a place where some persons have been assembled to inquire something from him and while the victim was proceeding with appellant no. 1 Kamal Mandal, four armed persons concealing their face also arrived at the door compelling this witness to go inside the house, who on coming out found that the miscreants have already entered into forest with his son. He returned back and learnt that the miscreants have also abducted other two victims. The dead-bodies of all three victims could be recovered from the forest fourteen days thereafter. In Court, he could identify only appellant no. 1 Kamal Mandal, but refused to identify rest of the co-accused whether present or under representation. In cross- examination in paragraph - 3, he says that some of the person concealing their face was in police uniform. On hue and cry he went inside the house and came out only after about half an hour, remained in the village till 4.00 P.M. He could learnt from P.W. 1 Gopali about the abduction of remaining two victims and also brings the fardbeyan, Exhibit - 3 under grave doubt while saying that he went to the police station in the evening alongwith villagers, informed about the occurrence and also put his left thumb impression (L.T.I) on his recorded statement and further in his cross-examination in paragraph - 7. When on recall, in paragraph - 6 in his examination- in-chief, described himself as the informant of the case and police had recorded his fardbeyan. He says that prior to him, Gopali (P.W. 1 an other eye-witness) had gone to police station, where he made his statement and if it is so, the very fardbeyan, Exhibit - 3, lost its sanctity under law contemplated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it is evident from Exhibit - 3, that it is the statement of this P.W. 2, recorded at about 11.30 A.M. at village Domkatta itself, but in his examination in Court, he said nothing about such recording of his statement in village rather contrary to it, he states that his statement was recorded at police station in the evening and prior to him, P.W. 1 had already gone to police station and made statements before the police authorities. This part of statement of this informant finds support from the statement of P.W. 1 Gopal Pandit also.