SARYUG MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been found guilty by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 1983/47 of 1995. Apart from appellant no. 2, all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, the appellant no. 2 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years considering the fact that he was 65 years old.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that Jaldhar Mandal was sleeping in his house along with his family members. It is said that his uncle Mangal Mandal had gone to village Daliyanpur and there were only female members in his house. At about 12 in the night, 8 accused persons including the five appellants entered the house of Mangal Mandal. Bhudeo Mandal was armed with gun, Sahendra Mandal and Chandi Mandal had pistols in their hands whereas the others were armed with lathies. The appellants had committed theft in the house of the informant. When the informant went to the house of his uncle, he saw that the miscreants were cutting legs of Indra Devi. Sanjukta Devi, daughter of Indra Devi had identified the accused persons. After committing theft in the house of Mangal Mandal, the appellants ran away. The informant raised alarm whereupon the villagers gathered at the place of occurrence. The reason for the occurrence has been disclosed in the First Information Report which indicates that the miscreants have entered the house of Mangal Mandal in order to kill him. It is said that there are cases pending between Saryug Mandal and one Lekha Mandal. The informant's uncle supports Lekha Mandal which is the reason why the accused Saryug Mandal was aggrieved and had come to kill Mangal Mandal.

(3.) THE Trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of the sole testimony of PW 1. Considering the fact that the informant and the victim persons of this case have all turned hostile and have denied the participation of these appellants in the occurrence, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was a dacoity committed in the house of Jaldhar Mandal, but it cannot be said that these appellants had participated in the said occurrence. It is not safe for this Court to convict the appellants on the sole testimony of PW 1, who claims to have identified the appellants considering that they belong to the same village and that they had taken no precaution to cover up their faces while they have come to commit dacoity.