LAWS(PAT)-1999-12-52

NATHUNI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On December 06, 1999
Nathuni Chaudhary Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah (Bhojpur) dated 22 -9 -1994 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. The accused was originally charged under Section 395, I.P.C., but the trial Court came to the conclusion that no cases under Section 395, I.P.C. is made out and accordingly convicted him under Section 392, I.P.C.

(2.) The brief fact of the prosecution case is that on 21 -1 -1993 the informant Ramruchi Pathak (P.W. 6) was going to his village from Piro along with Sheoparsan Singh, Sheoparsan Tiwary, Tuntun Singh and others. When he reached near Barauli Mor at Piro Agiaon Road at about 7.00 p.m. all on a sudden 4 to 5 persons armed with Lathi and Danda surrounded them. One of the miscreants assaulted the informant with lathi and demanded money, from him. On refusal by the informant to part with the money the miscreants took out his shirt and also taken away Rs. 5,000/ - kept in his pocket. They also snatched Rs. 75/ - from Sheoparsan Tiwary (P.W. 4) and Rs. 150/ - from Pyarchand Ram. They also snatched other belonging of the remaining persons. It is further case of the prosecution that the miscreants also surrounded one rickshaw puller who was returning from the village and assaulted him when he refused to part with the money. Among the miscreants the informant had identified Nathuni Chaudhary (appellant) because the appellant resides in his neighbouring village situated at a distance of one and half bigha. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on 21 -1 -1993 at 21.30 hours at Government Hospital, Piro where the informant was treated and on the basis of it formal F.I.R. was drawn up. After commitment the trial proceeded in the Court below.

(3.) The case of the defence is that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case because of previous enmity and on account of one Jaimangal Singh, co -villager.