LAWS(PAT)-1999-7-87

KAUSHAL KUMAR PASI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On July 01, 1999
Kaushal Kumar Pasi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals have been heard together as they arise out of the common judgment of conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 1987 by the then 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, in the district of Bhojpur whereby and where under all the accused-appellants have been convicted under Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but no separate sentence was awarded under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) Tarkeshwar Pandey Tikulihar (P.W. 5) lodged an F.I.R. on 7.10.86 at about 11-30 a.m. to the effect that in the last light i.e., on 6.10.86 at about 11-30 p.m. at his residence situated at village Farna P.S. Barhera when he was sleeping along with his wife all on a sudden about ten dacoits entered in the house and on the point of gun he was asked to deliver the bunch of keys. Out of fear he gave then the bunch of keys. One of the dacoits armed with gun and another with Bhojali remained in guard of the informant and his wife and rests searched out the articles from the house. A lantern was burning in the house and torch light was flashed by the accused persons in search of the booties. According to the informant, he could see the face of the dacoits in the light of the lantern and flash of torch of the accused persons. The dacoits looted bundle of clothes, a box containing untensils, one chain and some other ornaments. Dacoity was also committed in the adjacent house belonging to his elder brother Paras Nath Pandey Tikulihar (P.W. 1) and the articles worth Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 8,000 had also been taken away from that house. When the dacoity was finished and the dacoits were ready to flee away the informant and his family members raised their voice and then the villagers rushed to the place of occurrence. On the basis of the fardbeyan Barhera P.S. case No. 149/86 was registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the unknown. On the very same day i.e. on 7.10.86 at about 9 a.m. one Ram Janam Bhagat son of Bajrangi Bhagat gave his fardbeyan before Arrah Town police station that early in the morning when he had gone to bank of Ganges to case himself he saw some persons carrying some bundle of clothes and they were going in a very suspicious manner. He asked whereabouts of those persons, at this seven or nine persons fled away leaving bundle of clothes. The informant and other persons chased and caught two of them, namely, Suleman Mian and Kedar Bari, Those two persons were handed over to Arrah Town police station along with bundle of clothes. Arrah police station forwarded the case to Barhera police station for entry and investigation. Both these cases were taken up together for the purpose of investigation and it could be found that the bundle of clothes which were recovered from the possession of the dacoits, some of whom fled away and two could be caught were the booties of the present dacoity and those booties were identified by the informant party. T.I.P. was held twice as Kedar Bari and Suleman named other accused persons who could be caught on subsequent dates. In the T.I.P. the accused appellants have been identified. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On being committed to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed against all the accused-appellants on 28.7.1987. under some Sections of the Indian Penal Code. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellants they pleaded guilty.

(3.) Prosecution side in total examined 14 witnesses although there were in total 24 charge-sheeted witnesses. Out of these 14 witnesses 5 had been tendered, namely, P.W. 6 to P.W. 9 and P.W. 11. P.W. 14 is the formal witness. P.W. 12 and P.W. 13 are the judicial Magistrates who held Test Identification Parade in Arrah Jail. Others were the witnesses of the occurrence. Investigating Officer has not been examined in the case.