UPENDRA SINGH AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appeared on behalf of the Appellants on repeated calls to press this appeal at the time of hearing. This appeal is of the year 1989 which relates to the Sessions Trial No. 220 of 1985. In order to expedite the hearing of the appeal, the records of this appeal are being handed over to Mr. Satya Prakash, Amicus Curiae, for hearing.

(2.) The Appellants Upendra Singh and Ashok Singh alias Ashok Kumar Singh, both sons of Late Ram Narayan Singh of village Moresaray, P.S. Shivasagar, District- Rohtas, have been convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for 14 years each by judgment and order dated 4th July 1989 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 1985. This appeal is against that judgment and order.

(3.) The prosecution case is based upon the ferdbeyan (exhibit 1) of the informant, Sheoshankar Singh, P.W. 4. According to the informant P.W.4, whose statement was recorded at 9.30 A.M on 5.9.1981 before the officer in-charge of Sheosagar Police Station, in the preceding night at about 12.30, dacoity was committed in the house of his father Harbansh Singh at village Moresaray. It is alleged that in course of dacoity the accused persons took away the households articles from there and also injured the father of the informant, Harbansh Singh. The father of the informant, Harbansh Singh, was taken to the hospital for treatment who later on succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, a case was registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons vide Sheosagar P.S. Case No. 95 of 1981. The case was investigated by the police and after investigation charge sheet was submitted. After cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial where charge was framed and explained to the accused persons who pleaded their innocence saying false implication in this case due to previous enmity. The further defence of the Appellants was that they were not named in the F.I.R which was recorded after nine hours of the occurrence and there was allegation that the informant was not present at the time of occurrence.