SINGHESHWAR MANJHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th September, 1991, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge IX, Patna, in session trial no. 99/90. The appellants were convicted under section 395 IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years.

(2.) THE prosecution case originated on the fardbeyan of one Dukhani Devi, wherein she stated that in the night between 3/4th July, 89, at about 1 a.m., she was sleeping at the Osera of her house on a cot. Suddenly, she was disturbed in her slumber and when she woke up, she found that the door planks of her house were open. She wanted to close the door, but two of the marauders started pressing her neck. She identified these two persons as Singheshwar Manjhi and Muneshwar Manjhi (appellants) of village Danara (P.S. Daniyama). The Shri Gupteshwar Bedua Versus Magadh University informant announced that she identified these two persons. Then she was assaulted by Singheshwar Manjhi on her head. She started bleeding from the injury on her head. Thereafter she found that other dacoits entered inside the house and had ransacked articles including steel boxes etc. One of the dacoits fired from his gun when they came out of the house. There was alarm raised by the informant which attracted the villagers. Thereafter there was firing from "Galiara". Later on she learnt that Ram Kishun Mahfo had brickbatted the marauders which was retailed by the culprits in firing from the fire arms. On the eastern side of the courtyard, the informant 's cousin sister was sleeping at the Osera and her aunt was also sleeping at the same place. Dacoits had received the cousin sister of the informant of her golden ear -ring. The informant further learnt that 3/4 dacoits were standing outside the house and four of them entered inside the house and three culprits were having turbans on their heads. They were having no apparel on their person. The dacoits fled away towards eastern direction of the village.

(3.) THE accused appellants had taken the defence of false implication because they had worked at the house of the informant and at houses of the witnesses and they were demanding wages which were not paid.