RAJU HADI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant had challenged the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by Shri P.N. Yadav, Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 433 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case in a nut-shell is that in the night between 15/15-1-1995 at about 15-20, mis-creants variously armed with pistols, Garasa, Lathis, Chain etc. entered into the Benedih Colliery Godown and thereafter 4-5 miscreants assaulted Sheoji Singh, night guard and he also sustained fire-arm injury and thereafter he fell down. It is further alleged that some of the miscreants entered into the godown premises after scaling over the boundary wall. Another night guard Hari Nandan Singh arrived at the godown from the Colliery Office. Other night guards were also on duty at the relevant time. The night guard Ganesh Singh (PW-5) was assaulted with dagger. The miscreants looted away the welding rod, bruss buses, fans, etc. from the godown. The Project Manager of the Colliery Mohan Khaitan was also informed about the incident on telephone who along with others rushed to the spot and visited the place of occurrence. The Fardbayan of Project Manager, Shri Mohan Khaitan was recorded on the basis of which the First Information Report was lodged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against 15/20 unknown persons. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the sole appellant Raju Hadi. The appellant appeared before the trial Court. The charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was framed to which he pleaded not guilty.

(3.) The witnesses were examined in the lower Court. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to under go in the manner as stated above by the impugned judgment dated 10-3-1998 and 17-3-1998. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant preferrd this appeal claiming therein that the learned Court below committed error in passing the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant without legal evidence and the single identification also suffers from material infermities and illegalities.