ROOP LAL RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant Nos. 1 and 4 who have been convicted Under Section 436/149 and Appellant Nos. 2, 3 to 8 who have been convicted Under Section 436 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and further the Appellants have been convicted Under Section 147, 148 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. The prosecution case as alleged that a mob of about 150-200 persons came armed with lathi, bhala, farsa with raising slogans and setting fire and the informant identified 17 persons out of the said mob. The informant and others concealed themselves in a paddy field and sugarcane crop mobs the south of the road. It is also alleged that the rioter set on fire about 24 houses of the Muslim community including the informant's house. The occurrence alleged to be took place on 8-10-92. However, the farde-beyan was recorded on 21-10-92. On the farde-beyan, F.I.R. was lodged, cognizance taken and case have been committed to the Court of Sessions and after commitment charges were framed 22 witnesses were examined and after considering the order and documentary evidence out of 17 accused persons, 9 were acquitted and the Appellants who are 8 in number have been convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Appellants, however, contended that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the F.I.R. has been lodged after 13 days. It has further been contended that just after the occurrence the police party and high police officials visited the place of occurrence and even a police picket was established in the village, even then there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. It has further been contended that the Government announced compensation to persons whose house has been burnt and thereafter the cases were lodged for compensation (Muawaja). It has further been contended that almost all the witnesses named by the accused persons but out of the 17 accused in same set of evidence. It has further been pointed out that though the witnesses have named the accused persons but the attention of the witnesses have been drawn with regard to their earlier statement before police and even the contradiction has been recorded by the I.O. In several paras of the evidence of the I.O. P.W. 22 had written from Paras 31 to 37 and the attention has also been drawn to the material witnesses, P. Ws 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14 and there is material contradiction regarding the participation of the accused in the riot and hence the evidence of the witnesses are suffered from contradiction. Hence, the evidence of 6 prosecution witnesses are not reliable, trustworthy or worthy of confidence to be relied for conviction.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the State, however, pointed out that the learned Lower Court has recorded the conviction after considering the evidence of the witnesses and even taken into consideration the contradiction and has recorded the finding in Para 27 of the judgment were the learned trial Court found the participation of Appellant No. 1 reliable by P.W. 3 and the participation of the Appellant No. 2 from the evidence. P.W. 14 and the participation of the Appellant Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 by are reliable evidence or P. Ws. 10, 2, 4, 2, 6, 10.