LAWS(JHAR)-2004-1-106

SULTAN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

Decided On January 09, 2004
Sultan Ansari Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the appellant has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.7.1998 and 27.7.1998 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 1994/Trial No. 139 of 1994 by Sri Dhananjay Prasad Singh, 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. However, co -accused Safdar Ansari was not found guilty under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was accordingly acquitted.

(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan of PW 1 Ram Lochan Prasad Gupta recorded by S.I. J.N. Singh of Ratu P.S. on 24.9.1992 at 4.30 hours at his house at village Banapiri regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 23.9.1992 at 19.30 hours in his house in the said village in which several ornaments worth Rs. 6,000/ - from the box have been taken away by the dacoits and a case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, against the appellant, and the acquitted co -accused Safdar Ansari and four unknown dacoits was instituted on 24.9.1992 at 8.15 hours by drawing of a formal FIR (Ext. 2). The formal FIR and the fardbeyan have been received on 24.9.1992 in the Court empowered to take cognizance.

(3.) THE appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been contended that the appellant has come to village Banapiri to the house of his relative and on alarm he had gone to the house of the informant where he was apprehended by the co - villagers under suspicion. However, in the written argument it has been stated that there had been an altercation between this appellant and the son of the informant and the appellant has beaten the son of the informant and thereafter the family members of the informant caught the appellant and brutally assaulted him and locked him in a room of his house and when the relatives of the appellant came with the police force for the rescue of the appellant, a false case of dacoity has been set up implicating the appellant therein.