RAM BAHADUR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted u/s.363 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for four years by a judgment dated 25.9.1997 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions case No.37 of 1991.

(2.) The case of the prosecution according to the informant Sanjay Kumar Sinha is that while he along with Fagu Paswan was passing through a river on 17.8.1990, the appellant came there and caught him on the point of a pistol while Fagu Paswan fled away. He was taken towards the river bank and threatened to kill him for the reason that his brother was not returning the money he owed to the appellant. On the informant's cries several persons gathered there and caught the appellant and produced him before the Police Station along with the arms.

(3.) During trial, the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.9 Sanjay Kumar Sinha is the informant. P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.12 are tendered witnesses. P.W.1 is Fagu Paswan, who was along with the informant on the date of occurrence but his evidence appears to be untrustworthy. P.W.9, the informant, has not supported the factum of occurrence. P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.2 is the brother of the informant, whereas P.W.3 is the mother of the informant and both are hearsay witnesses. P.W.4 is a witness on the factum of occurrence as also P.W.5 is said to have seen the appellant having been apprehended. P.W.7 is the Chaukidar but his evidence is completely inconsistent with the prosecution case. P.W. 12 is a witness, who was never examined before the police whereas P.W.10 is a hostile witness. P.W.11 has also been declared hostile.