Back
1972 Supreme(Pat) 89
PATNA HIGH COURT
G.N.Prasad, J.
Roop Kishore Prasad
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 1968 ;
Decided On : MAY 5, 1972
The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were among the dacoits who had raided the house of P. W. 2 on the night in question. The court also found that the evidence of identification was reliable and that there was no reason to believe that the appellants had been falsely implicated in the case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - DAOCITY - IDENTIFICATION - CORROBORATION - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WITNESS AND ACCUSED - SECTION 395 INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 310 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 75 INDIAN PENAL CODE - FACTUM OF DAOCITY - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WITNESS AND ACCUSED - PREVIOUS CONVICTION - SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants Rampratap Mahato and Babulal Mahato were convicted under Sec.395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 each or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months more. The occurrence took place at mid-night between 30th April and the 1st of May, 1965 in the house of Gumani Singh (P. W. 2) in village Kothia, some four miles away from Tajpur police station in the district of Darbhanga.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were among the dacoits who had raided the house of P. W. 2 on the night in question. The court also found that the evidence of identification was reliable and that there was no reason to believe that the appellants had been falsely implicated in the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were among the dacoits who had raided the house of P. W. 2 on the night in question? 2. Whether the evidence of identification was reliable? 3. Whether there was any reason to believe that the appellants had been falsely implicated in the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were among the dacoits who had raided the house of P. W. 2 on the night in question. The court relied on the evidence of the identifying witnesses, which was corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses who had seen the appellants at the scene of the crime. 2. The court held that the evidence of identification was reliable. The court noted that the identifying witnesses had a clear view of the appellants and that they had no reason to falsely implicate them. 3. The court held that there was no reason to believe that the appellants had been falsely implicated in the case. The court noted that there was no evidence of any animosity between the appellants and the informant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal of Rampratap Mahato and allowed the appeal of Babu Lal Mahato.
1. Appellants Rampratap Mahato and Babulal Mahato who are full brothers have been convicted under Sec.395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 each or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months more. The occurrence, in which they are alleged to have participated, took place at mid-night between 30th April and the 1st of May, 1965 in the house of Gumani Singh (P. W. 2) in village Kothia, some four miles away from Tajpur police station in the district of Darbhanga. The house of the appellants lay in the another Tola of the same village at a distance of about half a mile from the house of Gumani Singh (P. W. 2).
2. The Prosecution version of the occurrence is as follows : On the night in question, Gumani Singh (P. W. 2) was sleeping just outside the Darwaza of his house on a Chabutra of a well. Near him were also sleeping his servant Kewal Singh (not examined) and one of his labourers Jhaman Singh (P. W. 4). He was roused from his sleep by the sounds of foot steps, but as he wanted to get up he was surrounded by three or four dacoits. So, out of fear he kept on lying on his cot and covered his face by means of his Chadar. He heard the sounds of push at the outer door of his house appearing to him to have been caused by the dacoits, whose total number was eight or nine. On hearing the knocks at the door his sister Ram Dulari (P. W. 3) opened the door thinking that the knocks at the door were given by her brother (P. W. 2). As soon as she opened the door of the house eight or nine dacoits effected their entry therein. The dacoits were armed with torches and other kinds of weapons. Among the dacoits were the two appellants, both of whom were identified by Ram Dulari (P. W. 3). Appellant Babulal caught hold of P. W. 3 while appellant Rampratap robbed her of the various ornaments which she was then wearing. Subsequently appellant Rampratap directed his attention towards Mohini Devi (P. W. 1), the elder of the two wives of Gumani Singh (P. W. 2). From her persons also, appellant Rampratap snatched away several ornaments. In the meantime Resma Devi (P. W. 11) the junior wife of Gumani Singh (P. W. 2) arrived near her Sautin (P. W. 1). Appellant Rampratap snatched away some ornaments from her person as well. The dacoits ransacked the other portions of the house and looted away articles after breaking open an almirah and some boxes. While the dacoits were still in the house, Mohini Devi (P. W. 1) went outside and raised an alarm which was heard by a large number of villagers and several of them came to the Darwaja of Gumani Singh (P. W. 2). In the mean time the dacoits fired some crackers and after coming out of the house they ran away towards the east. Several of the villagers pursued the dacoits to some distance but the culprits managed to escape. Later on the chasers returned to Gumani Singhs house and on entering into his house they learnt from the female inmates that among the dacoits were the two appellants, who belonged to their own village.
3. The first information report (Ex. 1) was lodged by Gumani Singh (P. W. 2) at 8 a. m. on the next morning. The investigation was taken up by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sahabuddin Ahmad (P. W. 14). On visiting the place of occurrence, the police officer noticed various signs of dacoity in the house of Gumani Singh (P. W. 2), such as broken locks, almirah and boxes. After the 11th May, 1965, the investigation was conducted by other police officers and ultimately charge, sheet was submitted against the appellants.
4. At the trial, fourteen persons figured as prosecution witnesses, among whom the witnesses on the point of occurrence were the five inmates of the house, namely P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 and five of their co-villagers, namely P. Ws. 5,7,9, 12 and 13. The witnesses on the point of identification however, were only the two ladies, namely, Mohini Devi (P. W. 1), who claimed to ha
