BAIJNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE salient facts of the prosecution case are that while celebration of marriage of Shakuntala Devi (P.W. 9) was over and female members were making preparation for Shakuntala 's going to her in -laws ' house, unidentified miscreants ransacked house of Suraj Das in the intervening nights of 18/19th June, 1990, and coercing inmates of the house, removed house belongings. They also relieved female members of their ornaments and also their wearing apparels. During operation of dacoity, two cousins of Suraj Das claimed to have identified appellants and Rajesh Kumar Das, son of the informant, too claimed to have identified one Bishwanath Sahani. Fardbeyan of Suraj Das was recorded by Police Officer at 1.30 hours on 19th June, 1990, pursuant to which investigation commenced. The Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, noticed sign of violence there, took steps for apprehension of miscreants, effected recovery of booty, allegedly from houses of Rajdeo Singh and Adalat Mian, got Sachindra Das clinically examined by doctor, and on conclusion of investigation laid chargesheet before the court. In the eventual trial that followed, while State examined 14 witnesses, the defence too examined two witnesses and brought on the record two deeds.

(2.) THE defence of appellants both before the court below and this Court have been that of plea of innocence. The explicit defence of Adalat Mian was his false implication due to land dispute, and as for Baijnath Singh, his defence of false implication was for no good reasons. The trial court, however, negativing contentions raised on behalf of appellants recorded finding of guilt against both the appellants under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years. Adalat Mian suffered conviction also under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count too, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, with direction that sentences awarded to Adalat Mian shall run concurrently.

(3.) NOW adverting to the case of Adalat Mian, there has been claim of identification made by Rajesh Kumar Das, P.W. 1, Bhola Das, P.W. 2, Surendra Das, P.W. 3 and Sachindra Das P.W. 5. In his case too, the same logic would follow, as neither Rajesh Kumar Das, P.W. 1 nor Surendra Das, P. W. 3, were suggested to have claimed identification of this appellant in the fardbeyan of Suraj Das. However, in case of Adalat Mian, there has been identification by Bhola Das, RW. 2 and Sachindra Das, RW. 5 for which there has been explicit accusation attributed to this appellant for his identification by these two witnesses in fardbeyan of Suraj Das.