KIRAN SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH prosecution was launched against five accused persons including Suleman, Kiran Sah, Uday Lal Sharma, Abbas and Talim, Police after due investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court against as many as eight persons including Abbas, Suleman, Talim, Najmul, Tajmul, Kiran Sah and Sk. Rajjaque. It seems from the record of the proceeding that trial of Uday Lal Sharma was separated and it commenced only against the appellants who, on being tried by Shri Prem Narain Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 1987, suffered conviction under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years.

(2.) THE factual matrix. ''In the mid night of 22nd June, 1985, the miscreants, holding lethal weapons, having gained their access in the inner apartment of the house of Motiur Rahman (P.W. 8), after coercing the house inmates, tied their limbs with the rope, broke open the boxes and collected house belongings from the house which included ornaments, wearing apparels and also cash and decamped with the booty having taken recourse to firing while retreating from the place of occurrence. The house inmates were also subjected to assault, and with these accusations, prosecution was launched against five persons, as stated above, on behest of Motiur Rahman, pursuant to which investigation commenced. During investigation, Police recorded statements of a number of wintesses, including the persons who set the Police in motion and other house inmates, visited the place of occurrence and, on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court against as many as eight persons. The trial, that commenced, was against three persons which remained conclusive against the appellants, who suffered conviction and were sentenced in the manner stated above. In the eventual trial, the State examined altogether ten witnesses. Defence of the appellants before the trial court and also this Court had been plain denial of entire allegation and they scribed their false implication, and the trial court placing reliance on testimony of these witnesses, having negatived the defence of the appellants, rendered verdict of guilt finding them guilty of the charges with which they were saddled at trial.

(3.) NOW , coming to other set of witnesses, who allegedly claimed identification of the appellants and others, one cannot fail to notice that Sk. Mainuddin (P.W. 1), though claimed identification of Razaque and Tajmul in the light of lamp, he would state that Razaque was residing in the tola where he resides and his house was adjacent south to his house. Not only that, they claimed identification of Razaque in the dim light, but subsequently in the next breath, he states that the person identified by him resembles to that of Razaque and, that apart, he did not claim to have narrated identification of Razaque to Motiur Rahman. The other disturbing feature of the testimony of P.W. 1 cannot remain unnoticed. The witness would admit that he did not narrate identification of Razaque to any one. Md. Abid (P.W. 3) claimed identification of Razaque only with the aid of voice. Though this witness stated to have gone to the Police Station for lodging information about commission of dacoity in the house, he admitted in certain terms that he did not narrate before the Police about identification of Razaque nor he did narrate identification of Razaque to other persons. Jainuddin (PW. 4) would not claim identification of the appellants, as his claim of identification was confined to one Najmul who was not the appellant. Muzahid Alam (P.W. 6) claimed identification of Tasleem and Abbas who were not the appellants.