SHANKAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 22/3/2006 and 23/3/2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Sahibganj in S.C. No.183 of 1996/S.T. No.53 of 2005 whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sec. 395 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 7 years.

(2.) Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 8/7/1995 at about 8:45 PM, the informant Bhola Yadav has got reported his fardbayan at Sahibganj (T) Police station stating inter alia that while he was returning by Kiul Sahebganj passenger train 324 down and coming to Sahibganj from Mirzachawki, meanwhile 10-12 miscreants entered into the said passenger train and started committing robbery with the passengers. It is further alleged that one of the miscreants pointed pistol towards the informant and started demanding money then due to fear, he delivered Rs.30,000.00 to the miscreants then the miscreants taking the money in his hand opened fire with the intention to kill the informant which caused injury on his back left side and he failed down. It is further alleged that all the miscreants are aged about 20-25 years and were talking in hindi. They have plundered with other passengers also and alighted from the train at Karamtola. The informant could identify the miscreants.

(3.) Fardbayan, the informant, Bhola Yadav was recorded by A.S.I. Harihar Singh at Sadar Hospital, Sahibganj in operation theatre room on 8/7/1995 at about 20:45 hours and on the basis of above information Rail Sahebganj P.S. Case No.09 of 1995 dtd. 9/7/1995 was registered against unknown dacoits. Charge of investigation was undertaken by S.I. Bhupesh Kumar and after conclusion of the investigation; charge-sheet was submitted against two accused persons namely Shankar Mandal (appellant) and Chandra Shekhar Mandal. The case of Chandra Shekhar Mandal was split up by the concerned trial court due to his absconding during trial. The case of present appellant was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.C. No. 183 of 1996 was registered and after conclusion of the trial, the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced as stated above.