RAM BHAJAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Factual matrixAllegedly, in the night of 9th February, 1994, while Shobh Narain Sah (PW 5) was fast asleep in his house along with family members, he got awakened on shouts raised by his wife and children. His wife had been stabbed by one of the miscreants who had gained access along with his associates in inner apartment of the house, and when he wanted to catch hold of them, one of them, in his bid to climb on the roof, dropped injured, pursuant to which he was apprehended. Those, who were standing outside the house, had made good their escape and they resorted to firing, while retreating. A good number of villagers had collected by then who also identified Ram Bhajan Yadav, the appellant, who disclosed complicity of his associates.

(2.) Police Officer on receipt of information about incident in village Neyazipur, rushed there and recorded fardbeyan of Shobh Narain Sah and also took custody of the appellant and also firearm allegedly held by him. After a police case had been instituted on behest of Shobh Narain Sah, as/usual investigation followed and in the process of collection of evidence, Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, took steps for apprehension of rest of. the miscreants, whose complicity had been disclosed by the appellant, got Taramuni Devi medically examined by the doctor, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, State examined altogether eight witnesses out of whom, though PWs 7 and 8 stated about commission of dacoity in the house of Shobh Narain Sah, but did not disclose complicity of the appellant. The State also examined house inmates including Shobh Narain Sah, who was maker of the fardbeyan, neighbours and also the Police Officer. Defence of the appellant both before this Court and the Court below had been that of innocence and he ascribed false implication for no good reasons.

(3.) At the outset, it would be appropriate to state that though ten persons were put on trial, while rest were acquitted to the charges by the trial Court, appellant alone suffered conviction under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years. Defence, however, had not chosen to examine any witness.