DOMI MIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seven appellants have been found guilty for an offence under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 71/96 arising out of Jadiya P.S. Case No. 32/94 and are convicted to undergo R.I. for 10 years. Appellant No. 7, Bhajan Sharma has further been convicted under Sec. 412 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for 10 years. It was ordered that the sentence passed against Bhajan Sharma, appellant no. 7, shall run concurrently. Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 have remained in custody for about 6 years in this case, appellant no. 5 has remained in custody for 4 months and 4 days, appellant no. 6 has remained in custody for about 3 years and 9 months, whereas, appellant no. 7 has remained in custody for about 2 years, 8 months.

(2.) Nine witnesses were examined in this case. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are witnesses of the seizure list, whereas, the others claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. A defence has been raised on behalf of the appellants alleging therein that the appellants are well known to the informant being neighbours and having their lands in the same village, side by side, which has given rise to certain disputes with respect to the boundary of the agricultural land leading to the implication of the appellants in this case. Their names have been implicated due to land dispute. The fact that the dacoits were not identified would be apparent in the manner in which the First Information Report has been instituted and the delay in sending the First Information Report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate which has remained unexplained. It is further submitted that the seizure of the alleged stolen articles is not supported by exhibiting the articles in Court or proving the seizure list as such, it has been argued that this is a case of false implication.

(3.) Saini Sharma, P.W. 3 is the informant of this case and his evidence would be most relevant for the purposes of establishing whether these appellants were involved in the aforesaid occurrence. Saini Sharma admits that all the appellants are his neighbours and that they have their agricultural land by the side of the land of the informant. He has stated that they had come to commit dacoity with their faces uncovered. According to this witness, the recovery of the stolen articles was made on 10.7.1994 itself. The most spectacular part of the evidence of this witness is the statement he has made regarding lodging of the First Information Report. As pointed out, the occurrence took place in the night of 8/9th July, 1994. At paragraph 11, P.W. 3 states that he went to the police station to inform them regarding the dacoity at about 7 A.M in the morning of ninth. According to the informant, the Investigating Officer did not take his 'Fardbeyan' at the police station but recorded his 'Fardbeyan' at about 8 or 9 A.M. at his house. This fact is contrary to the actual First Information Report which says that the 'Fardbeyan' was recorded at 2.30 hours. According to Saini Sharma, he has identified the stolen articles on 10.2.1994 at 12 O'clock in the afternoon which is very strange as it appears that the seizure was made even before the First Information Report was lodged.