CHHATHU SAHANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8-3-1989 passed by the then 4th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 35/88 (2/88) convicting both the appellants under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

(2.) A dacoity was committed in between the night of 18/19th April, 1985 at the house and shop of the Informant Sukan Das at village Ujain Lohiar Tola Singha, P.S. Hardidhi, District East Champaran, According to the Informant, he was sleeping inside the house along with with family members while his father Bachan Das was sleeping in the shop on the outer part of his house. In the night at about 11.30 p.m., some person pushed the Tatti with another and then two to three dacoits entered inside the house. They began to assault him with lathi and asked the inmates to hand over the key. It may be mentioned here within three four days after the date of occurrence, the marriage of the Informant was to be performed and, as such, several new articles were purchased and kept in the house. The accused-persons including the accused-appellants being the villagers were in the know all the things. While dacoity was being committed, the Informant, his wife and other inmates could identify the accused-appellants and some other dacoits also. It is the case of the prosecution that while dacoity was being committed Hulla was raised by the inmates as a result of which the neighbouring people came to the Darwaja of the Informant and the dacoits started fleeing away when they were being chased by the villagers, the dacoits fired their guns as a result of which two of the villagers sustained pellet injuries. Besides, the informant and his wife and co-villagers P.W. 9 who was also among the chasers could identify the persons including the accused-appellants. It was specifically mentioned that accused appellant No. 1 was carrying a box containing articles which was alleged to be taken away from inside the house of the Informant. Some of the dacoits were wrapping their faces with Gamcha although some were not. There is identification of some other accused-persons also. In total, 9 accused-persons were put on trial for a charge under Section 395/412, I.P.C., but as identification could be established by three witnesses in one voice, the two accused-appellants have been convicted and other have been acquitted on benefit of doubt. Regarding the charge under Section 412, I.P.C., acquittal was recorded as the same could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Regarding the seizure and custody nothing could be recovered from the accused-appellants, although it was stated that accused appellant No. 1 was carrying the box containing valuable from the house of the Informant. In total, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Vital witnesses on the basis of whose evidence conviction Court be established is P.Ws. 1, 2 and 9. On close scrutiny of their evidence, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at that these two accused-appellants were identified properly and the factum of dacoity could also be proved by all the witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution and, as such, conviction has been arrived at. On independent scrutiny of the evidence on record, I also come to the same finding as arrived at by the learned Court below. There is no impropriety in the Judgment itself and, as such I debar from discussing the evidence of individual witnesses as the same could only be a reiteration of what has been stated by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment.

(3.) Thus, when the case has been proved under Section 395, I.P.C. against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubt, the conviction arrived at cannot be interfered and thus the appeal has got no force. It appears from the record that one hand of the accused-Appellant No. 1 Chhathu Sahani was already chopped off and he was about 55 years at the time of trial. Accused appellant No. 2 Suraj Sahni was also 65 years at the time of trial. The occurrence took place long back in the year 1985 and by this time 15 years have elapsed. Soon after the occurrence, the accused-appellants had been arrested or surrender before the Court below. Accused-appellant No. 1 remained in custody since January 1986 and the accused appellant No. 2 remained in custody since February 1986. They languished in custody during the course of trial and they could be released only on bail when appeal has been preferred by this Court. Accused appellant No. 1 was granted bail on 28-9-89 while accused appellant No. 2 was granted bail On 4-4-1989. On perusal of the bail-bond that they remained in custody for more than three years when the criminal trial prolonged for more than one and half decade, I feel that the accused-appellants who have now become only men and justice does not demand that they should again be sent to the jail for serving the remaining/ balance of the sentence imposed by the Court below. They have already suffered both mentally physically and financial during this period of one and half decade when pangs of criminal case was hanging and the appeal is being heard after one decade. Considering that aspect alone the sentence imposed by the Court below is hereby minimised to the period undergone.