DIWAKAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant along with one Moharlal Mirdha were tried for the charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) whereas, Moharlal Mirdha was acquitted, the appellant has been convicted under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

(2.) THE fact which led to this appeal in brief is that on 19/20.2.2001 at about 11:30 PM. Pitamber Mandal, the younger son of the informant, Jiyadhar Mandal, who was sleeping in the Varandah called him and requested to open the door saying that the miscreants are threatening to kill him and his wife. The informant at first did not open the door, he peeped through the window and saw that 5/6 miscreants were catching hold of his son and were assaulting him. The informant' raised alarm but no -body turned up. The miscreants then brought kerosene oil and poured on his son, who cried that the miscreants were going to set fire on him if the door is not opened. When the informant opened the door, one miscreant gave fist blow over his face and asked to disclose whereabouts of the cash. They, thereafter, entered into the room of Hari Mohan Mandal, the father of the informant and took away Rs. 10,000/ - from his Almirah. They also took away H.M.T. wrist watch and utensils from his house. When the miscreants were leaving the house after committing dacoity, the informant followed them and successfully pushed one of the miscreants into the well near his house. Subsequently, the miscreant was taken out of the well who disclosed his name as Diwakar Prasad Singh of village Gangara, P.S. Pathargawa, District Godda. He also disclosed the name of other miscreants.

(3.) THE prosecution altogether examined ten witnesses. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence. Out of the prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 deposed that the appellant was taken out of the well and was trying to flee away. P.W. 1 is the father of the informant. He stated in paragraph -3 of his deposition that the appellant was taken out of the well in the next morning. In paragraph -6 of his deposition, he stated that he had handed over Rs. 10,000/ - to a dacoit but he is unable to identify him. In paragraph -14 he stated that when the appellant was caught hold, no looted articles were recovered from his possession. P.W. 2 is the uncle of the informant. He has stated in paragraph -1 of his deposition that on the day of occurrence, when he reached to the informant's house, he saw about 500 persons already assembled. He saw -that one dacoit came out of the well and was about to run away but he along with others caught hold of him. He disclosed his name as Diwakar Prasad Singh (appellant). P.W. 2 is one of the witnesses of the FIR lodged by the informant, Jiyadhar Mandal (P.W. 4). He has proved his signature on the FIR (Ext. 1). P.W. 3, Dinesh Mandal is the nephew of the informant; he has stated in paragraph -1 of his deposition that he heard Halla and rushed to the place of occurrence. He saw that one dacoit came out of the well and was about to run away but the people caught hold of him. He disclosed his name as Diwakar Prasad Singh. P.W. 4 is the informant. He has stated in paragraph -1 of his deposition that when the miscreants were running away after committing dacoity in his house, he chased them and pushed one of the dacoits into the well.