SUMSHUL SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R . N. Prasad, C. M. Prasad, JJ 1 Both the appellants stand convicted under Sections 395 and 364 (A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and respectively sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and rigorous imprisonment for life. The sentences are, however, to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, as set out in the fardbeyan recorded on the statement of informant Surya Narayan Mahto on 17th January, 1996 at 7.15 p. m. by S. I. R. N. Choudhary at the door of informants house is that, that day (17/1/1996) his (informants) daughter Sangita Kumari Likhiya was seated at his shop and leaving the shop under her care, he (the informant) was going out for defecating. He (the informant) further stated that while he had proceeded about 50 yards from the shop, he heard the sound of breaking of doors and, turning back, he saw that 7 -8 persons were outside his house and 3 -4 persons had entered into the shop. They were dacoits who were armed with gun and pistol. It was further alleged that the dacoits demanded key from Sangita Kumari@ Likhiya, but she did not hand over the same to the dacoits, hence, they assaulted her with fists and slaps. He further stated that he getting afraid, hide himself behind the heap of straw nearby and then he saw that the dacoits looted away articles, clothes, ornaments and cash amounting to Rs.16,000.00 (sixteen thousand) from his shop and other portions of the house, attached to the shop. It was also alleged that at the time of commission of dacoity, one of the dacoits who was commanding others had ordered for searching Surya Narayan Mahto, i. e. , the informant, but since he was not found there, he ordered the dacoits to carry away with them his (informants) daughter Sangita and that at the time of fleeing away with the booty, the dacoits did also kidnap away Sangita Kumari. It is stated in the Fardbeyan that while taking away Sangita Kumari, the dacoits were stating that they would get money in ransom for releasing Sangita Kumari. The details of articles, clothes, ornaments and cash money were mentioned in the fardbeyan. None of the dacoits was named in the fardbeyan. However, their physical description was mentioned and the informant claimed that he could identify them on seeing them again, On the basis of the fardbeyan, Andhra Tharhi P. S. Case No.2 of 1996 was registered and the investigation commenced. On completion of investigation and submission of charge -sheet, the appellants along with seven others were put on trial under S. T. No.2 of 1996 before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge. Madhubani and vide impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2000, the two appellants were convicted and sentenced, as stated above.

(3.) PW 3 Ranjit Panjiyar deposed on similar lines, as PW 2 did. This witness says about the commission of dacoity, but he does not say having identified any of the dacoits.