NIKODIN MUNDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10th April, 2001 passed by Sri Rakesh Ranjan Verma, 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 593 of 1993 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 395 of the I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo R.1. for a period of seven years.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.3.1993 between 8.30 P.M. to 9 P.M. the informant, Hanuman Mal Jain resident of Main Road Chakradharpurwas going to Chakradharpur from Ranchi with Gauresh Kumar Jagatram and his son Satyam Jagatram on Maruti Car bearing no. B.R. -18C -1344 when he reached near village under Murhu Police Station, he found that a log of the tree had been kept on the road and the road was blocked. The informant stopped his car. Immediately, 8 to 10 persons from both sides of the road came to the informant. Amongst them, one had a pistol and he asked the informant to handover the key of the car. When the informant handed over the key of the car, the said miscreants told the informant and other occupants of the car to come out from the car. AU the occupants of the car including informant came out from the said car. The said miscreants surrounded the informant and others and few of them took out clothes, Attachee, shoe etc. from the said car and further they looted Rs. 5100/ - from the informant and Rs 400/ - from the other two persons. After looting the informant and others, they injured the informant on his head by the butt of the pistol and ordered not to raise any 'Hulla'. Thereafter, they fled away. The informant went to Bandgaon Police Station and informed about the occurrence but the police of Bandgaon Police Station told him to go to Murhu Police Station as the jurisdiction of the case is under Murhu Police Station. The informant, due to the late night, did not go to Murhu Police Station and returned to Chakradharpur.

(3.) THE prosecution examined four witnesses in support of the prosecution case. Amongst them, P.W. 3 is declared as hostile. P.W. 3 has been cross -examined and from his deposition, it is established that few boys were committing something and hearing their voice, he had come out from his house but immediately again returned to his house. The informant is P.W. 1 he has stated about the occurrence happened with him. He has further stated that he and his companions were subjected to road dacoity and his articles and cash money were looted away by the dacoits. The informant (P. W. 1) has further stated that he had identified one of the dacoits (appellant) in T.I. parade held in the jail. P.W. 2 is Gourish Kumar Jagatram who was with the informant in the car at the time of alleged occurrence, has supported the occurrence of dacoity as alleged in the F.I.R. He has also stated that his Prestige brief -case and his new shoes, his pen and a sum of Rs. 400/ - in cash had been looted away by the dacoits in the said road dacoity. He has also stated that he had identified one of the dacoits (appellant) in the test identification parade held in the jail.