STATE OF BIHAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR YADAV @ MANTOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROSECUTION case initiated on fard-bayan of one Manoj Kumar (PW-9), in brief, is that at about 1.00 A.M. when he returned from cinema and reached on verandah of the office found Arun Sah, Home guard sitting on table trembling. Md. Rafique and Chandeshwar Yadav, both home guards were lying on the floor. Havildar Uma Prasad and home guard Ramesh Bishwash were sitting at the floor. Uma Prasad was in drunken position was saying "LUT GAYA LUT GAYA", informant rushed to guardroom and found all the rifles and cartridges intact then he jolted Havildar Uma Prasad and asked if anything had happened, Uma Prasad told that from Godrej Almirah of In-charge room cash box containing cash was taken away. Matter was informed to the police station, again Arun Sah was jolted, who told (informed) that Birendra Yadav and stranger had come at 9.00 p.m. on motorcycle. It was requested on behalf of the accused Birendra Yadav for sweets and all the present were provided ,,Rasgulla in three pieces each. Three pieces of ,,Rasgulla was kept in a Thali for the informant. Matter was informed to Madam Superintendent of Police; police came and recorded statement of the informant. It is claimed by the informant that after providing intoxicating substance in ,,Rasgulla all the home guards personnel present were made senseless and cash box containing Rs.22 lacs was taken away. It is specified that money was withdrawn from the bank for distribution of the same among the home-guard personnels.

(2.) AFTER concluding the trial, same is ended in conviction of accused-appellant of Cr. Appeal No.66 of 2001 and acquittal of Vijay Kumar respondent of Government Appeal no.04 of 2001, validity of conviction is challenged by appellant Birendra Yadav of Cr. Appeal No.66 of 2001 and by Government against acquittal of respondent Vijay Kumar.

(3.) PW -13 has been tendered for cross-examination and nothing has appeared in his cross-examination relevant on the point of taking place of the incident involving accused persons. PWs-3, 4 and 5 have not stated a word about involvement of accused persons. All the three have been declared hostile and are of no use for prosecution.