SURENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dtd. 16/10/2003 and order of sentence dtd. 22/10/2003 passed by the learned VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the aforesaid appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under sec. 395 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 8 years.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the informant P.W. 3 -Fatima Bibi stated before the police on 27/3/1989 at about 10.30 pm at Chainpur Police station in the District of Palamau at Daltonganj alleging therein that on the same date 27/3/1989 at about 8.30 pm when she along with her two daughter namely Ashma (P.W.4) and Sazda Begum (P.W. 2) were lying on bed, on seeing a man on her roof, she called Sarfoo, but in the meantime the said accused person jumped in her courtyard and opened the outer door of her house from inside providing opportunity to nine other accused persons to enter inside the house. She further alleged that the dacoits who jumped from her roof into her courtyard were armed with gun to whom she identified as Bhola Singh. She has also identified Surendra Pandey as one of the dacoit armed with pistol. It is further alleged that the accused persons asked the whereabouts of the articles and they also assaulted her. She also alleged that the accused persons also assaulted Ashma and got knowledge of the said articles which were kept for the marriage of her daughter Sazda. It is further alleged that the said dacoits looted away a cash of Rs.4000.00 and ornaments, clothes, utensils worth Rs.10,000.00 from her house. It is further alleged that when the accused persons at the time of returning opened fire on Ram Raj Mistry P.W.1 causing injury to him thereafter the informant along with Ram Raj Sharma came to the police station and got her statement recorded. It is also stated by the informant that on the fateful night her husband Hazar Khan was away from his house.

(3.) On the basis of aforesaid statement formal FIR was drawn by the appellants and investigation of the case was commenced. After completing of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellant along with one another accused Bhola Singh for the offence punishable u/s 395 IPC on 2/2/1993 and the trial of the case commenced. It appears from the record that the co-accused Bhola Singh absconded during the course of the trial after framing of the charge and the learned trial court has separated the trial vide its order dtd. 14/5/2003 by splitting the record of this case vide S.T. no. 44A/90 from the present appellant Surender Pandey.