SATYA NARAIN BIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE only mother and her son were in the house, it is alleged that in the intervening night of 2nd/3rd April, 1984, miscreants, having scaled over roof of house with help of bamboos, gained their access in the inner apartment of the house and coercing the house inmates, removed wearing apparel, ornaments and cash and decamped with the booty. It was alleged that when Lal Babu having identified one of them, raised alarm, shouting for help, Kesho Ahir shot him dead and with these accusations, fardbeyan of mother of the deceased was recorded by Shri M.P. Sharma, Sub -Inspector of police of Sonbarsa Police Station at 8.30 a.m. on 3rd March, 1984, pursuant to which first information report was drawn up. The police came in action, collected evidences, recorded statement of witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, sent the dead body to mortuary for post mortem examination, and having received post mortem report, concluded investigation and laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether seven witnesses, including mother of the deceased, the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of Lal Babu, the Police Officer who investigated the case, formal witnesses and others, who stated to have reached the place of occurrence, pursuant to which identification of the appellants was disclosed by Jonihia Devi (P.W. 2) to them.

(2.) THE defence of the appellants, it seems, before the Court below and also this Court had been that of innocence and they ascribed their false implication. The defence pleaded by the appellants was that due to dispute with regard to irrigation of land and also dispute with regard to passage of water through drain, there had been false implication of them. However, the trial Court having negatived contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants, about their innocence, and having place implicit reliance on the testimony of witnesses, rendered verdict of guilt, finding the appellants guilty u/s. 396 of the Indian Penal Code ( Indian Penal Code, 1860 ) and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

(3.) BEFORE we discuss the evidence adduced on behalf of the State, we may notice some criticisms made by the learned Counsel for the appellants which have been made to assail the propriety of the findings recorded by the Court below. Contentions are raised that complicity of the appellants becomes extremely doubtful even from evidence of the Police Officer which itself manifestly suggests that only after fardbeyan of Jonihia Devi was recorded by the Police, it came to know about complicity of the appellants. Yet, it is urged that though a lantern was suggested to have been burning in the bed room where Lal Babu had slept on the fateful night and an earthen lamp burning on the verandah, contrary to these assertions made by the witness, recitals of which have also been made in the fardbeyan, the Police Officer who visited the place of occurrence noticed only an earthen lamp in the bed room of Lal Babu, and reiterating his submission, it is urged that in the meagre light of earthen lamp regard being had to the optical potency of a man, the possibility of identification of the appellants would be extremely remote. Learned Counsel would urge that the appellants were none else but quite known to the informant, as while some of them hail from the same village, others hail from adjoining village who too were known to her, preceding the date of incident, and in backdrop of these mitigating circumstances, it was quite unlikely that the appellants would indulge in commission of dacoity without taking any precaution for concealment of their identity. Admitted enmity between the parties and there being no mark of violence at the place of occurrence, were also one of the grounds on which bona fide of the prosecution case has been suspected. It is urged that informant had been stating before the Court, recitals of which have also been made in the fardbeyan, that one of the miscreants namely, Kesho Ahir shot at Lal Babu, who was inside the room, through window and this circumstance too, which appears to be hypothetical and imaginary, did not stand to reason, and as for motive, it is urged that though some sort of motive was sought to be assigned by the State for commission of offence, taking the same to be true, it was most weak motive which is not expected to have mobilised the appellants to commit an offence of dacoity and gruesome killing of Lal Babu. Learned Counsel for the State, while for the resisting submissions raised on behalf of the appellants, would urge that the lone eye witness has claimed identification of the appellants who was the victim of the incident and hence, he deserves all credence. It is urged that though other witnesses, who stated to have reached the place of occurrence, did not claim to be ocular witness to the incident, their evidence too was not of less significance, as complicity of the appellants soon after the incident was disclosed to them by Jonihia Devi (P.W. 2), the informant. About the source of identification of the appellants, which was an earthen lamp, that was burning in the house, it is urged on behalf of the State, that even in the meagre light, the victims are accustomed to have vision, and identification of the appellants cannot be said to be a remote possibility. Even though the appellants were quite known to the informant, it is not very uncommon that such crimes are committed by known persons without concealing their identity.