MAINI @ MANAGER DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.6.1992, in Sessions Case No. 342 of 1990, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for committing the offences under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R1 for a period of 7 years. The other co -accused, Bhakti Darbey, who was also tried along with the appellant, was however acquitted by the Court below.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in short, is that in the night of 19.8.1987 at about 8 p.m. seven to eight persons, suddenly entered into the courtyard of the informant, Sugia Devi (PW 2) while the informant and her daughter were lying on their cot after night meal. It is stated that four persons came near the informant and asked for money. The informant stated that one of the miscreants was known to her prior to the occurrence and his name was Maini Das (appellant), and it was he who had asked for money. The informant replied that she had no money. At this, the appellant started assaulting the informant and her daughter -in -law with 'lathi', fists and slaps. Thereafter he entered into the house of the informant and took away a tin box. After breaking open the same, one Tape Recorder and Rs. 206/ - in cash was taken away. It was further said that the miscreants had entered in her house with a wine bottle and they started drinking there. The accused persons were identified in the light of 'dibia', which was burping there and also in the light of torch flashed by the accused persons. These dacoits were in the house for half an hour and in that course of of dacoity they scattered the house hold articles. The dacoits were repeatedly asking for Rs. 14.000/ - from the informant. It is said that the dacoits took away two kasa thali, two kasa lota, one small lota one kasa Glass, cycle pump, as well as one black woolen Sal and cash of Rs. 30/ -. It is further said that when the informant came out from the house, she found her husband tied with a cot. Her husband stated that he was tied by the dacoits and they took away Rs. 20/ - from his possession. It was further said that the dacoits also committed dacoity in the house of Anant Turi (PW 4) and Satan Rai (PW 5) of the same village.

(3.) THOUGH the case of the prosecution was that after the commission of dacoity in the house of the informant, the dacoits also committed dacoity in the house of Anant Rai (PW 4) and in the house of Satan Rai (PW 5), but as it appears that Anant Rai (PW 4) has been declared hostile since he did not support the prosecution and the other man namely, Satan Rai (PW 5) was tendered by the prosecution and therefore the fact that the dacoity was committed in their houses, could not be established by the prosecution.