MANGRA ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON repeated calls nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. Then the court requested to Sri Tapas Rai, Advocate for assisting' the court and he agreed to assist the court.

(2.) THE prosecution case was started on the basis of the fardbeyan given by the informant, Rajesh Kumar on 8.1.1998 at one A.M. at Sukhdeonagar Police Station. On 8.1.1998, at 1 P.M., he produced a pistol and cartridges before the Investigating Officer at the police station and stated that he has got a shop -cum -house where he is running a shop. He stated on 7.1.1998 at about 7:15 in the evening when he was sitting in his shop and his younger brother Rakesh was standing outside the shop, then two boys came there. One of them was Mangra Oraon, son of Champa Oraon, asked him for a packet of cigarette from him. His other friend was standing outside the shop. When he gave the cigarette packet to him and, then he pulled out a pistol from his pocket and putting the same on the eardrum (Kanpati) asked for money, whereupon the informant caught hold the revolver and gave call to his younger brother Rakesh Kumar to call his 'mama' who resides in front of the shop. In the meanwhile, he snatched the revolver from the accused Mangra Oraon. Mangra asked his friend Somra, who was standing outside the shop, to give the bomb and after taking bomb, he started running towards Maidan but since he was running, the bomb exploded. With the help of other villagers, the informant chased the accused persons but could not get their trace. He stated that Mangra used to come to his shop for cigarette earlier also, but he does not know other accused Somra and after searching for them, he found that while they were running away, in the explosion, the finger of one accused has fallen down after explosion. He gave the full description of accused Mangra and Somra. The Investigating Officer made seizure list of the pistol and registered a case under Sections 393, 216(A); 201 and 25(i)(b)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and after investigation, submitted charge -sheet under Sections 393, 398, 216, 201 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that it appears from the evidences of the informant and other witnesses that at the time of occurrence on 7.1.1998, the informant had not identified the accused and subsequently, he did not lodge the F.I.R. on 7.1.1998, since both the police station was near about the place of occurrence. Moreover, the identification and name given by the informant is doubtful because the neighboring witnesses has stated that immediately after the occurrence, the informant called them but failed to give the name of the accused persons and as such, the identification of the appellant is doubtful. The Trial Court acquitted Somra Oraon on that ground itself that the informant failed to disclose the name of the accused to the witnesses immediately after the occurrence.