SAJIT BARLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and conviction dated 24th and 25th November, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. Further, the appellant No. 2 Cristopher Barla alias Cristopher Kharia and appellant No. 3, Andherias Kerketta have been convicted under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years further and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -each and in default to undergo R.I. for two years. However, all the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief as stated that the informant along with others were returning on 18 -5 -1988 from the village Hat on bicycle and when they reached near Dhunsera river they saw six unknown boys and they intercepted them on the point of pistol and chhura and they looted away clothes and cash. The decoits also took away the wrist watches of the informant and others. The informant and others were also assaulted by electric wire and first and thereafter, the mis -creants fled away. Some villagers also came to the spot and got the information from the informant and others about the incident. Accordingly the First Information Report was lodged for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against Pokar Kharia only and unknown others. The police investigated the case and submitted charge -sheet against the appellants. The appellants appeared before the trial Court. Charges under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code were framed. Witnesses were also examined in the Court below. After hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned A.P.P. contended before me that there is no illegality in the judgment impugned. However, he conceded in course of argument that the seizure list has not been brought on the record and the learned Magistrate holding the T.I. Parade has not been examined in this case.