SONU MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the appellants have been convicted under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in short, is that on 22nd/23rd April, 1988, in the night while the informant Bhathu Chunihar was sleeping along with his family members he got up on the sound of barking of dogs. When he came out in his courtyard he saw a person on the northern wall who pointed a pistol and started abusing him and asked to keep quiet. The informant identified the person who was near the wall was appellant Sonu Mandai. It has been stated that three more associates of appellant Sonu jumped in the courtyard and the informant rushed towards a room to hide himself and when he wanted to close the door, the miscreants put three pistols between the two planks of the door to prevent closure of the door. As such the informant could not close the door but he pulled out a pistol from them and gave the pistol blow on the miscreants as a result of which one of the miscreants fell down on the ground. The informant identified appellant Paddu Mandai amongst the miscreants in the light of electric bulb. Thereafter he again saw two dacoits standing at the door and one of them had two barrel gun with him wrapped in a cloth and he was identified by Bhathu Chunihar to be Lakhan Mandai of village Bhairopur. Appellant Lakhan Mandai opened fire on Tuni Das cousin of the informant. Thereafter the informant managed to escape and raised alarm in the village. When the dacoits fled away he came back and learned from his wife Sita Devi (P.W. 4) that the dacoits had also assaulted her and were asking for the key of Godrej Almirah and she identified Raju Mandai amongst the dacoits. The dacoits also removed a Television of Weston Company, a sewing machine, a table fan and two boxes containing clothes and ornaments belonging to the family members. It has been stated that in the box Rs. 4000/ - were also kept which belonged to the daughter of the informant. Thereafter Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellants pleaded not guilty.

(3.) P .W. 5 the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated in his Fardbeyan. According to him on 22nd/23rd April, 1988 while he was sleeping along with his wife he woke up on the sound of barking of dogs. When he came out in the courtyard along with his wife he noticed one person on the northern wall in the light of electricity and he identified him as appellant Sonu Mandal. He has stated that the miscreant having pistol jumped in the courtyard along with his three associates. Having seen the miscreants he rushed to his room and wanted to close the door but the dacoits inserted pistol between the planks of door, as such, he could not close the door. According to him, he pulled out a pistol from one of them and gave a pistol blow on one of the miscreants who fell down on the ground. He also claimed to have identified appellant Paddu Mandal among them. According to him, he wanted to escape but they gave a pistol blow from back and he sustained injury on his hand. According to him, when he came out side the house he saw two persons, one of them was carrying double barrel gun wrapped in a cloth and he identified one of them as Lakhan Mandal (appellant). When the miscreants opened fire he rushed towards village and raised alarm and when he came back along with the villagers he found his wife unconscious who disclosed that the miscreants had assaulted her and had taken away T.V., sewing machine, two boxes containing clothes, cash arid ornaments. P.W. 1 has supported the factum of dacoity but he did not identify the dacoits. P.W. 2 has also supported the case of the prosecution as stated by P.W. 5. According to him, he identified appellant Lakhan Mandal. P.W. 3 has also supported the factum of dacoity but did not identify any of the dacoits. P.W. 4 the wife of the informant has also supported the version of the informant and has stated that the dacoits had assaulted her and had taken away the articles kept in her room. She identified one of the co - accused Raju Mandal.