CHANDRIKA BIND Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIVA Kirti Singh and Subash Chandra Jha, JJ. The sole appellant has preferred this appeal from jail against his conviction under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment and order dated 8. 10. 2001 whereby he has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for life for the said offence.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that a dacoity took place in the house of the informant Janak lal Baitha PW8 on 10. 11. 1998 at about 10. 30 p. m. It is also not in dispute that 10-15 dacoits managed to loot away several articles. Ornaments and money from the house of the informant and they also assaulted some of the inmates and in particular a son of the informant. Pankaj Baitha received serious knife injury for which he was taken to Chapra Sadar Hospital for treatment but he later succumbed to the said injury giving rise to Daudpur P. S. case no. 134 dated 11. 11. 1998 initially under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. On the next day Section 396, IPC was added because the injured Pankaj Baitha died in the hospital and his autopsy was conducted by Dr. Arun Kumar PW7 on 11. 11. 1998 at about 3. 45 p. m. He found a stitched wound infront of right chest of the deceased which had caused injury to the lung and was the cause of death.

(3.) IN the fardbeyan only the name of the appellant appeared as an accused. The allegation levelled against the appellant in the fardbeyan is exactly to the following effect. By the side of informant's house. Chandrika bind appellant disclosed to the miscreants that Janak Lal Baitha (informant) lives in a particular room and Mohan Baitha (brother of the informant PW3) lives in another particular room. Apparently the informant had heard some voices and suspected that the voice was that of appellant his neighbour and therefore he named the appellant in the fardbeyan with the allegation that particular rooms belonging to the informant and to his brother were allegedly disclosed to the miscreants by the informant.