SHANKAR PODDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment dated 29.8.1983 of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai passed in Sessions Trial No. 28/81/60/81 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sec. 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. At the very outset, it is mentioned that the appellants alongwith 11 others were tried under the charge under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code but all the accused including the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Sec.395 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants and two others namely, Subhash Chandra Singh and Ramji Paswan were convicted under Sec. 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Subhash Chandra Singh had filed Cr. Appeal No. 462/83 but he died during pendency of the appeal, hence, the appeal against him abated. An another accused Ramji Paswan filed this appeal alongwith present appellant Shankar Poddar but Ramji Paswan who was on bail, absconded during pendency of this appeal, hence, this appeal stood dismissed being incompetent against Ramji Paswan vide order dated 4.4.2006. Thereafter, this appeal continued only against the present appellant Shankar Poddar.

(2.) THE fardbeyan of the case was recorded by S.I. M.R Singh at Begusarai P.S. on 10.3.1980 at 2: 30 P.M. on the statement of Deobrat Sarkar (P.W.15), Manager of the Bank of Baroda Branch. The prosecution case as per statement of the informant is that on 10.3.1980 at 2.00 P.M. while he was in his chamber in the bank and was engaged in his duty, 8 -10 criminals carrying pistols and Garasha entered into the bank, out of whom, two criminals came to him and forcibly took him towards the cashier and forced him to stand there in a corner then the other criminals who were armed with pistol started taking out money from the drawer of the cashier and he collected the money in his Dhoti. Thereafter, the criminals confined him (informant) and the cashier in his (informant 's) room and thereafter the criminals fled away from the bank. The informant also alleged that the Accountant and some other customers who had came to the bank for their banking transactions had been confined by the criminals in the toilet of the bank. After fleeing of the criminals, the informant and others came out from the confinement. The informant found that the criminals had decamped with Rs. 2,61,624 and 66 paise from the bank. The informant also alleged that the criminals had snatched Rs. 200.00 from Indrabhusan Singh, a customer and Rs. 600/ -, some papers and wristwatch had been snatched from Kailash Prasad (P.W.10) and Rs. 800.00 had been snatched from Mithilesh Mishra. The description of the physical features and clothes of the criminals was given in the fardbeyan but any criminal was not named and the F.I.R. was lodged against 8 -10 unknown criminals.

(3.) THUS , on perusal of the above prosecution witnesses it appears that only the P.W. 5, P.W. 9 and P.W. 22 have stated the recovery of the looted money from the house of the appellant and the appellant has been convicted on the basis of this evidence. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses needs to be discussed in detail in order to find out whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Sec. 412 of the Indian Penal Code beyond the shadow of the reasonable doubt or not.