JADDU CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment, of conviction dated 23-4-1998 and order of sentence dated 24-4-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 1987 whereby and where under the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj held the appellants guilty under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and convicted and seiitneced them to undergo R.I. for 2 years.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that in the night of 6/7-1-1996, a dacouy was committed in the house of the informant and dacoits were holding gun, roll and lathi. On alarm of the inmates, relatives sleeping outside the house, the villagers came there and they chased the dacoits and one gun was recovered from the dacoit which was later on handed over to the police. The informant and the family members claimed to identify the accused in the torchlight. The informant Jokhan Sao lodged an FIR with the Garhwa police station and a case under Section 395, IPC was registered. Some persons were arrested on suspicion and they were put on TIP and they were identified by the witnesses. Thereafter charge sheet in the case was submitted. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of sessions and the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge recorded the evidence of witnesses both oral and documentary and came to a finding and held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.

(3.) PW 1 is Deoki Sao. He has deposed that a dacoity has taken place and in the TIP, he had Identified one suspect. PW 2 is Anil Kumar Tiwary. He has been tendered for cross-examination. PW 3 is Mahangu Chaudhary. He has also supported the prsecution case PW 4 is Dukhan Sao. Although he has supported the prosecution case but did riot identify any dacoits P.W. 5 Jokhan Sao. He is informant of the case as well as son of PW 1. He has supported the prosecution case. He has come lo say that a dacoity has taken place in the house of his father {PW 1) . He appeared in the TIP and Identified three dacoits. He says that whom he identified in the TIP, were not present in the Court when deposition was being recorded. PW 6 has also supported the prosecution case. PW 7 is the doctor who examined the injured. PW 9 is Judicial Magistrate who conducted the TIP of suspects. P.W. 11 has also supported the prosecution case about commission of dacoity but did not appear in the Tip and did not identify any dacoits. PW 12 is Lalita Devi. She did not Identify any person but says that a dacoity was committed in her house.