SANJAY DUSADH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUT of the present batch of four appeals, one bearing Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 386 of 2002 preferred by Tetar Yadav, stands abated on account of his death vide order dated 31.3.2014 passed by this Court. The six appellants of the remaining three appeals were tried by the learned 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for having committed dacoity on 16.3.1991 in the house of informant Balmuni Singh, who was not examined on account of his death. After being tried for the charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 324/1991 / 136/2001, the appellants were held guilty of committing the said offence and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. They have preferred this batch of appeals to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated 9.7.2002 and the order of sentence dated 11.7.2002.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , a dacoity was committed in the house of informant Balmuni Singh on 16.3.1991 at 6:15 P.M. by unknown dacoits, numbering 8 -10. The informant at that time was sitting in front of his Darwaza in a chair when the group of dacoits came; one of whom was having bombs in his hands whereas the other was armed with a sten -gun. They were wearing different clothes and were in the age group of 20 -24 years. The dacoit, who was carrying the sten -gun, said to the informant that he was harassing the harizans and wanted him to hand over his rifle to them. The informant stated that he had come after getting his eyes operated upon and as such he had deposited his gun into the Police Station. No sooner the informant had stated the above fact, the dacoit, who was carrying the sten -gun, picked up the lathi belonging to the herds -boy and dealt a blow with it on his head, but the informant took the blow on his left arm and was injured. The dacoits were pressurizing the informant to hand over his gun to them and, at all the occasions, the informant replied that it had already been deposited in the Police Station as a result of which two persons were put on guard of the informant while others entered inside the house with a view to looting and plundering it. The articles and properties, which were detailed in the Fardbeyan, were looted away by the dacoits.

(3.) THE very proforma for holding the Test Identification Parade does indicate that the evidence of identification could be valid only when the same had been done in context to the act committed by any member of the band of dacoits. In view of lack of any evidence that appellant Umesh Pandey in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 390 of 2002 had been identified while committing any particular overt act, his identification appears suspicious.