RAMESH MONDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the sole appellant assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.9.1995 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1994, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment, five years on each count. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE short facts, as alleged in the prosecution case, are that one Prawal Mistry, the Driver of Truck No. BIR 5721, was returning from Dehri -on -Sone after unloading coal and going towards Baghmara and when at about 4 a.m., he reached near Musa Pahadi,he saw some boulders kept on the road and on seeing this, he became afraid. It is further alleged that the informant stopped his truck and started driving his truck back but the vehicle went in wrong side and, as such, he stopped the truck. In the meantime, about five dacoits came there and got the door of the truck opened and thereafter they looted away the bag containing Rs. 14,700/ - including the papers of the vehicle and another bag containing Rs. 110/ -. In the meantime, a Jeep which was coming from Gosala side and on seeing the said Jeep, the dacoits fled away and from the Jeep the police personnel came to the informant to whom the informant disclosed the incident. Thereafter the police started chasing the dacoits along with the informant and his Khalashi and one of the dacoits was apprehended who disclosed his name as Ramesh Mondal. He was also caught with a bag containing Rs. 110/ -. Accordingly, a First Information Report was lodged as well as the seizure list was prepared. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge -sheet against three accused -persons including this accused/appellant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the very outset submitted that the learned Court below committed error in convicting the appellant as none of the witnesses supported the prosecution case and even the informant did not identify the appellant in the dock. It is further argued that the Khalasi who is said to be present at the time of occurrence, has also not been examined by the prosecution to substantiate the story in the manner as alleged. It is further argued that the alleged bag or the money amounting to Rs. 110/ - has never been put in the test identification parade and, as such, it is difficult to say that the said bag and the money were actually the looted property.