RABINDRA MUNDA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant Rabindra Munda stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1996.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of October 8, 1995 in between 5.30 to 6.30 p.m., informant Safique Ansari was going along with deceased on Trekker bearing Registration No. BEM 1300 from Petarwar to Maganpur. The informant was the Khalasi and driver of the said vehicle in which only three passengers were travelling. According to informant, as soon as the vehicle reached near Chopadar valley. they found some of the vehicles were standing on the road from before so the driver stopped the vehicle there, Further stated, as soon as the vehicle stopped, three armed persons came there and demanded money from them. According to the informant, one of the assailants put a revolver on the chest of the driver while another assailant put the dagger on him and demanded money immediately. The informant tried to pull out Rs. 250.00 from his pocket to hand over the same to the assailants, but the appellant, who was carrying the dagger, snatched the money for him. In the meantime, the assailants carrying revolver shot the driver on his chest, resulting in death of the deceased. The third assailant was threatening the passengers to blow them with bomb. He further asserted that at the same time, other assailants were robbing passengers of other vehicles one by one. After this occurrence, all of them fled away.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to prove the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. It is also asserted that on single identification of the appellant, the conviction is not proper. In this memo of appeal, the test identification parade has been challenged not held in accordance with law. Mr. A.K. Sahani. learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in view of the non -identification by two passengers present at the time of occurrence, the conviction is fit to be set aside. It was also asserted that the First Information Report was lodged after much delay and one of the investigating officers has not been examined by the prosecution as well as some of the charge - sheeted witnesses remaining absent, the entire prosecution case should be disbelieved.