BHAGWAN SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the above-mentioned convict-appellants against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 303 of 1985 (17 of 1986) on 27-2-1989, whereby and whereunder the three accused-appellants along with three others have been convicted under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years.

(2.) A dacoity was committed at the house of informant Balkesh Sao in the night hours on 25-8-1984 and thus dacoits had taken away the valuables including the clothes, utensils and ornaments. Information was lodged on the next date by the informant Balkesh Sao. During the course of investigation on a secret information, the Investigating Officer conducted a raid in the huts and house of the accused-appellants along with others and several booties of the dacoity were alleged to be recovered. Those booties include dhoti, sarees, readymade garments, utensils and silver-made ornaments. A test identification parade was conducted by the B.D.O. On a belated date i.e. on 6-12-1984 and the informant and his wife had rightly identified some of the articles which were seized from the huts and house probably of the accused-appellants and also of the other accused who have been tried along with the accused-appellants.

(3.) The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused-appellants along with other four accused. Defence has fully denied of the prosecution case. On being committed to the Court of Session, charges were framed against all the accused-persons including the accused-appellants under Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In total, seven witnesses have been examined in the case by the prosecution side including P.W. 7, the I.O. During the course of trial informant and his wife and other inmates who were examined as prosecution witnesses have simply denied to identify all the accused-persons. They have not identified any of the accused-persons during the course of investigation also. Hence the Court below in the impugned Judgment held that the prosecution could not be able to prove the charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. But, regarding charge under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it was held by the Court below that the same has been proved against the accused-persons including the accused-appellants.