DINA NATH RAUT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been convicted u/s.394 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years by a judgment dated 14.10.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No.62 of 1989.

(2.) The case of the prosecution according to the informant Ram Sakhi Devi is that on 18.6.1988 while she was sleeping in her house along with her family members, some miscreants entered into her house and started removing her ornaments and boxes from their house. When a protest was made by one Din Dayal Raut, the accused persons shot at him, on account of which he died. The appellants were named in the First Information Report as the three miscreants, who had committed this act and were, therefore, charge sheeted and charged also u/s.302 I.P.C. but they were acquitted of the charges since there was complete absence of any evidence that it was the appellants, who had caused the death of Din Dayal Raut.

(3.) During trial the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have deposed as eye witnesses, out of which P.W.2 is the informant. P.W.3 is the doctor, who examined the injuries of the informant. P.W.4 is a formal witness. P.W.5 is a hearsay witness. P.W.6 has been tendered whereas P.W.7 is the doctor, who held postmortem examination on the dead body of Din Dayal Raut. P.W.2, the informant, has stated that at about four years ago while she was sleeping in her house he heard nock on the door and when she enquired about the identity but there was no reply to her query. Thereafter her door was broken open and the three appellants allegedly entered her house and assaulted her and snatched the ornaments that she and her mother-in-law were wearing. She specifically asserted that the appellant Dina Nath Raut had pressed her neck whereas appellant Ram Ekbal Raut and Shri Niwas Singh were removing the boxes from her house. She conceded in her cross examination that the appellants were co-villagers and her house was situated in a crowded place. She also conceded that the accused persons had not covered their faces. It was suggested to her that there was some kind of dispute and quarrel was existing from before the date of occurrence but she denied the same. P.W.1, the mother-in-law of the informant, also stated that the appellants had forced themselves inside the house and thereafter snatched ornaments and removed the boxes. She specifically stated that the accused persons had not covered their faces. P.W.5, a hearsay witness, stated that when he came to the place of occurrence he was informed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the appellants had committed this occurrence. However, he did not see anyone fleeing away from the place of occurrence. The doctor P.W.3 also found injuries on the person of the informant (P.W.2) and her mother-in- law (P.W.1) which further corroborates the occurrence.