SURAJ SINGH KOERI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 6th August, 2002 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No.91 of 1986/238 of 2001 by which they have been convicted under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant no.1 Suraj Singh Koeri @ Suraj Singh has further been held guilty for the offence under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been passed.

(2.) The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Raj Kapoor Ram (P.W.10) which was recorded on 4.2.1986 in S.K. Bose Hospital, Dehri at about 6.30 a.m. regarding an occurrence which took place in the preceding mid night. It is alleged in the farbdeyan that while the informant and his family members including his brothers Rajendra Ram (P.W.1), Ghanshyam Paswan (P.W.2), Vinay Ram (deceased) and lady members of the family after taking meal in the night of 3.2.1986 were sleeping, the informant woke up noticing human movement on the thatched roof of the house. The informant claims that he immediately understood that it was miscreants who wanted to enter inside the house. He raised alarm calling 'Chor' Chor'. Other family members also woke up and they all raised alarm in chorus. In the meantime, 8-10 dacoits jumped into the courtyard from the roof of the house. The miscreants ordered to open the door. The door was not opened. The miscreants thereafter threatened that if the door is not opened, they will break open the door and kill them. The informant and the family members still continued to raise alarm shouting 'Chor' 'Chor' but did not open the door. Ultimately, they broke open the door of the room in which the informant was present. The house of the informant was connected with electricity and lights in the courtyard and in the room were on. Four of the miscreants entered into the room of the informant. He could identify them in the electric light. They were aged between 23 to 30 years. One of them was armed with rifle. They looted ornaments, clothes, utensils, Usha fan, Tape recorder, sewing machine, watches etc., details of which have been mentioned in the first information report. They were 12-15 in number. The dacoits thereafter opened the main door of the house and fled towards north. The informant's brother Vinay Ram sustained gun shot injury at the hands of the miscreants whose condition was precarious and at the time of recording of fardbeyan, he was undergoing treatment. The informant has also alleged that his brother Vinay Ram had caused injury to one of the miscreants by Bhala. The informant claimed that if he and his family members got an opportunity, they could identify the dacoits and the looted articles. Fardbeyan of the informant was signed by one Kamlesh Ram and Ram Prasad Arya.

(3.) The aforesaid fardbeyan was recorded by one Jagdhar Tiwari, Officer Incharge of Barun police station. On the basis of fardbeyan, a formal first information report was registered on 4.2.1986 at 10.15 p.m. under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code being Barun P.S. Case no. 13 of 1986 against 15 unknown accused persons and investigation was taken up. The injured brother of the informant subsequently in course of treatment died. The police on conclusion of investigation submitted charge sheet under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of sessions. Charge under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against appellant no.1 Suraj Singh Koeri for dishonestly receiving and retaining looted property such as one old Usha Diplomat watch, one Philips Transistor and utensils belonging to the informant and his family members. Both the appellants were further charged for the offence punishable under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code for committing dacoity with other unknown dacoits in the house of the informant and in commission of the offence of dacoity they shot dead Vinay Ram, the brother of the informant. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried.