AGAM MUKHIYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by sole appellant is directed against the judgment and order, dated 7th of April, 1989 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 53/87/3/88 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 8 years under Section 395, IPC and RI for 5 years under Section 412, IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 4.1.1987, the informant Umesh Chandra Jha (PW 1) was sleeping in his house along with his family members when at about 11.00 p.m. he awoke on hearing the sound of breaking the outer door of his house. He suspected that some dacoits had entered his house. A lantern was burning in the room at that time. Thereafter, he found that four dacoits after breaking the laches of the door of his room entered there. Three of them were armed with farsa and one was armed with pistol. One of the dacoits gave a blow from the blunt portion of farsa on his right shoulder. The informant ran outside of his house where he found 3 -4 more dacoits standing there. He raised alarm on which Mohan Ram, Ram Charitar Mishra and others came there and the dacoits taking a box containing clothes and a cash amount of Rs. 350/ -fled away. The fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of informant was recorded by SI, Devendra Narayan Singh (PW 7) and on the basis of fardbeyan a FIR (Ext. 6) under Section 395 against unknown was lodged. During the course of investigation appellant was identified in TI Parade by informant and his wife (PW 2). A pink shawl was also recovered from his possession which was also put on TI Parade and the informant and his wife Shyama Devi (PW 2) identified it. After investigation Police submitted charge -sheet under Sections 395/412 of IPC. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial after framing charges under Sections 395 and 412, IPC. The case of appellant before the Court below was complete denial of the charges and his innocence. After the trial the appellant was found guilty under Sections 395 and 412 and was, accordingly, convicted and sentenced.

(3.) UMESH Chandra Jha (PW 1), the informant and Shyama Devi (PW 2) wife of informant have supported the case of prosecution on the point of dacoity. They have said that in the light of lantern they identified one dacoit, and later in TI Parade they identified him, who is the appellant. (PW 5) has said that on 9.1.1987 he in the capacity of Judicial Magistrate of Madhubani under the orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate conducted the TI Parade of appellant, who was identified by the informant and (PW 2). (PW 6) has stated that on 2.3.1987 he was posted as Anchal Adhikari at Jainagar and conducted TI Parade of shawl (Material Ext. 1) which was identified by the informant and his wife (PW 2). From the evidence of informant and his wife coupled with the evidence of PWs. 6 and 7, I find that the prosecution has proved the charges under Sections 395 and 412 against the appellant.