HAFIZ MIAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were tried and convicted for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code by the VIth Addl, Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1991 by order dated 31-8-1999 and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years, Feeling aggrieved the appellants have preferred these appeals.

(2.) Facts of the case registered on the basis of the fard beyan of the informant Dost Mohammad (PW6) on 21-8-1989 is that on the previous night of 20-8-1989, the informant returned to his house and found his dog barking. While the informant was asking his brother Rustam the reason why the dog was barking, two persons came from behind and caught hold of him and brought him inside the courtyard of the house and tied his legs and hands. The miscreants demanded money from the informant. The informant expressed that he had no money. Thereafter one of the miscreants brought a tin of kerosene oil from the house of the informant and poured it on the informant and lit a match stick threatening to burn the informant if the later did not reveal about his money. Meanwhile, the informant's father sneaked out from the back door of the house and raised alarms upon which several co- villagers came running. Seeing them, the miscreants fled away, but before that they had taken away several articles of the informant and had also opened fire while retreating. The other members of the family of the informant informed him that the miscreants had earlier entered into the house and made them sit in the verandah in front of the room of Rustam and that the miscreants had taken away silver and gold ornaments, a wrist watch and cash amounting to Rs. 1350/- from the house and had also assaulted Rustam with the butt of the gun in course of committing the robbery, The informant also learnt that the dacoits had committed dacoity in the house of a co-villager Ram Lakhan Mahato and had taken away valuables also from his house besides assaulting Ramlakhan Mahato and his son namely Ashok Mahato with a lathi, All these three appellants were put on trial under Section 395 IPC on the aforesaid allegation, Further case of the prosecution is that after, the appellants were arrested, they were put on test identification parade in course of which they were identified by the witnesses.

(3.) The appellants pleaded not guilty and preferred to be tried and the defence put forwarded on behalf of the appellants was that they were falsely implicated in the case because of previous enmity between informant and the appellant Harihar Sao.