SHRAVAN RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants before this Court stand convicted under Section 396 of the Penal Code and Appellant No. 1 Shrawan Ram was named In the F. I. R. itself. Appellant No. 2 Rajdeo Ram was named by the inmates of the second of the two houses where dacoity was committed in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. THE police seems to have submitted chargesheet against them apparently without much effort to find out the other culprits. Both the two appellants were, therefore, put on trial and were convicted and sentenced as noted above.

(2.) THE prosecution ease was instituted on the basis of the statement of Sonamati Devi. (P. W. 3) made before a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Bijaipur P. S. at the Referral Hospital, Bhore on 5-12-1988 at 3 in the morning. THE statement was taken down in the form of fardbeyan (Ext. 2) which was incorporated in the formal F. I. R. (Ext.1) drawn up later on the same day at 7.15 in the morning.

(3.) THE statements made by P. Ws. 1 and 4 before the trial Court appear to be quite consistent with each other. But their statements in Court cannot be said to be wholly consistent with their earlier statements before the police. In the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. the role attributed to the two appellants are somewhat different. For example, P, W. 4 had stated before the police that Rajdeo Ram was standing on the verandah with a country made gun and Shrawari Ram was outside carrying a sword. Before the police it was not said that Rajdeo Ram was seen with his (witness) cycle which he carried away. Strictly speaking the witness' earlier statements as recorded in the case diary cannot be looked into for the simple reason that his attention was not drawn to those statements. Though P. W. 4 has not asked any question about the actual occurrence with reference to his earlier statement before the police on another point his attention was drawn to his earlier statement (see paragraph 5 of his deposition) but he denied having said before the police with regard to the dispute with Shravan Ram over a piece of land for which he had got a sale deed executed from Savita Devi (the Phua of Shrawan Ram). A reference to the case diary (paragraph 29) shows that he had actually made such statement before the police and his denial in the court was incorrect. In that view it was strongly argued on behalf of the accused that a serious prejudice was caused to them due to non-examination of the I. O.