IMPORTANT POINT
Dacoity – Long delay in holding Judgment of conviction.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2005 and sentence dated 31.05.2005 passed in S.T. No.240 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No.1271 of 2001 by Sri Gautam Mahapatra, learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 395 of the I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I for seven (07) years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of fine he is further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year.

2. An F.I.R was instituted by Chando Devi that on 05.10.2001 at about 11.00 p.m. while all the family members were sleeping in the house then she woke up hearing the sound of dog barking and saw 7 to 8 persons were standing at the Angan and all of them over powered her and her husband at the point of Pistol and demanded cash and ornaments. Thereafter the miscreants entered into the room and looted away valuable articles including Wrist Watch, Ornaments after breaking the lock of the boxes and also looted away cash of Rs.100/-. The Dacoits were in the age group of 20-30 years and some of them had covered their face and some of them were armed with Pistol. The informant claimed to have identified two persons from the miscreants and one of the miscreants was Arbind Paswan, who was holding a Pistol and the other person was dacoit Jagan Bishwakarma and she claimed to have identified both the Dacoits in the Moonlight.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant-Chando Devi, the police instituted Chhatarpur P.S. Case No.83 of 2001 for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC against said Arbind Paswan, Jagan Bishwakarma and five unknown.

4. The police, after investigation, had submitted charge sheet on 10.01.2002 only against Jagan Bishwakarma and Chaneswar Paswan @ Yogendra Paswan (i.e. the appellant) under Section 395/397 of the I.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that it was the first offence of the appellant and he was in custody since 20.10.2001 till 27.06.2007 (i.e. around five years and eight months) and as such lenient view may be taken for the appellant.

6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has raised no objection.

7. It transpires that after lodging of the FIR by the informant-Chando Devi on 06.10.2001 against the five miscreants, the police submitted charge sheet on 10.01.2002 against Jagan Bishwakarma and Chaneshwar Paswan @ Yogendra Paswan (i.e. the appellant) for the offence under Sections 395/397 of the I.P.C. Thereafter the learned C.J.M, Daltonganj had taken cognizance under Section 395/397 of the I.P.C.

8. It transpires that after supplying of the police papers to the accused persons including the appellant, the charges were framed on 12.03.2003 under Section 395 and 397 of the IPC against the appellant-Chaneshwar Paswan @ Jogender Paswan and one Jagan Bishwakarma by Sri R.R. Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Palamau at Daltonganj and to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. During trial, the prosecution had got examined seven (07) witnesses in support of its case, who are as follows:-

(i) P.W-1 is Chando Devi i.e. the Informant,

(ii) P.W-2 is Brahmdeo Yadav,

(iii) P.W-3 is Rookmani Devi,

(iv) P.W-4 is Pradeep Kumar Chourasia,

(v) P.W-5 is Keswar Bishwakarma,

(vi) P.W-6 is Lakhan Mistry and

(vii) P.W-7 is Sheela Devi.

10. The prosecution in support of its case had got marked the following documents as Exhibits, which are as follows:-

(i) Exhibit-1 is the TIP Chart,

(ii) Exhibit-1/1 is the Signature of Chandrashekhar Prasad Sharma

11. Thereafter the appellant-Chaneshwar Paswan and Jagan Bishwakarma were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on 16.02.2005 and to which he denied the circumstances put forth before him.

12. The defence in support of its case had got examined three witnesses, who are