SUDARSHAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABOVE named sole appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 27th April, 1989 passed in Sessions Case No. 252 of 1986/12 of 1986 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya whereby the accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) AFTER the mid -night, at about 1.00 AM of 15/16.4.1985, about a dozen dacoits bazed upon the house of the informant Ramautar Yadav (PW 8) and they murdered his son Babu Lal Yadav and also caused injury to Chinta Devi, granddaughter of the informant and daughter of the deceased. The FIR was registered against unknown. The fard -beyan (Ext. 1) of PW 8 was recorded at 7.45 AM on 16.4.1985 divulged the commission of dacoity. At the time of dacoity, the informant was sleeping in his house. The informant's son Babu Lal Yadav (deceased) was sleeping in the Sehan of his house and inmates were sleeping inside the house. After hearing the sound of firing, the informant woke up and noticed 10 -12 dacoits. The informant's son Babu Lal Yadav was done away by them. The accused persons bazed into the house and carried away a box of tin and a Khakhi colour leather bag containing some ornaments and clothes of Chinta Devi. Not only the goods were taken away, but the informant's grand -daughter Chinta Devi (PW 7) and Sugba Devi (not examined) were also injured. The fard -beyan containing signature of attesting witness Surendra Prasad (not examined) and L.T.I. of Dular Chand Yadav (PW 3) resulted into the formal FIR (Ext. 2) under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code against a dozen unknown accused and the looted goods were described to be valued rupees four thousand and investigation commenced. Inquest report (Ext. 3) of the dead body was prepared, seizure of blood etc. (Ext. 4 and 4/1) were prepared and injury report of Chinta Devi (Ext.5) was obtained. The post mortem report (Ext. 6) of Babu Lal Yadav was obtained from the hospital. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The place of occurrence was inspected. The Police found the case to be true and submitted charge sheet, upon which the Court acted by taking cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions where charge under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code was explained to the sole accused. He pleaded innocence and faced trial.

(3.) THE defence of the accused was of false implication and also that the informant and accused persons are inmates of the same house and they belong to same board, and still the appellant was not named, so he is innocent. His further defence was that on account of property dispute, the appellant was framed in.