Back
2001 Supreme(Pat) 725
PATNA HIGH COURT
P.N.Yadav, J.
Musafir Rajbanshi
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2000 ; 331 of 2000 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 10, 2001
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent identification, absence of material contradictions, and acquaintance with the accused to establish guilt in a dacoity case.
Headnote:
Identification - Dacoity - Indian Penal Code - Section 395, Section 391 - The court found and held the appellants guilty and convicted them under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for dacoity. The prosecution successfully established the occurrence of dacoity and the involvement of the appellants through consistent identification by witnesses and the absence of any material contradictions in their evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code based on the prosecution's case that they, along with other miscreants, robbed the informant and his companion at gunpoint. The appellants denied the charges, claiming false implication out of enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty based on consistent identification by witnesses, their acquaintance with the appellants, and the absence of material contradictions in their evidence. The court also rejected the defense's claim of false implication due to enmity, as no evidence of enmity was presented.
Issues: The key issues were the occurrence of dacoity, the identification of the appellants, and their alleged false implication due to enmity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent identification of the appellants by witnesses, their acquaintance with the appellants, and the absence of material contradictions in their evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants for dacoity.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, reduced from seven years, considering the time elapsed since the incident and the hardships suffered by the appellants.
P.N.Yadav, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2000 filed by Musafir Rajbanshi and Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 2000 filed on behalf of Sadhoo Beldar alias Motua alias Ram Chandra Chauhan arise out of one and the same judgment and order passed by Shri Devendra Kumar Lal, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1992/319 of 1996 whereby and whereunder he found and held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and as such they have been heard together and are going to be disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the First Information Report and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as follows :
3. Yamuna Singh, informant (PW 2) and Md. Enamul Haque (PW 1) on 22.5.1990 at about 10.00 p.m. in the night were returning home from village Dadpur on a Scooter. When at about 10.15 p.m. they reached near Mubarakpur Dak Asthan on Nawadah Sikandara road enroute to their native place, they saw that the road was blocked by branch of seasam tree. Both PWs 1 and 2 suspecting some foul play got ready to return back to Nawadah and no sooner had they turned the scooter than about 15-20 miscreants appeared from the bushes and they surrounded them. The miscreants were armed with lethal weapons including pistols and revolvers. The miscreants forcibly snatched away cash worth Rs. 475/-and a torch from the possession of the informant (PW 2) and cash worth Rs. 76/- and an Alwyn automatic wrist watch worth Rs. 375/- from the possession of Enamul Haque (PW 1). After ransacking the informant and his companion, the miscreants retreated. Soon the police party on ambush duty happened to reach the scene of incident. The informant got his fardbeyan (Ext. 1) recorded at the place of occurrence itself at bout 11.30 p.m. on the basis of which Nawadah PS Case No. 129/90 giving rise to the instant case was registered. Investigation was taken up and after completion thereof charge-sheet was submitted and finally the trial commenced after commitment.
4. The appellants did not enter into defence. However, from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, written statement submitted on behalf of the appellants and the statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313, Cr PC the defence seemed to be that of total denial and false implication out of sheer enmity.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Sitaram Singh (PW 3) besides the aforesaid two witnesses (PWs 1 and 2).
6. The learned Additional sessions Judge after taking the facts, circumstances and evidence brought on record, into account found and held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them, as stated above, vide the impugned judgment and order.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them, the appellants preferred the instant appeals. The appellants assailed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court by contending that identification of the appellants was doubtful particularly when no test identification parade was held; that the witnesses did not speak of specific overt act committed by the appellants nor could they say which of the miscreants had robbed them of their belongings; that all the circumstances appearing against the appellants were not put to them while they were examined under Section 313, Cr PC and that the IO was not examined and that caused serious prejudice to the appellants.
8. It is to be considered as to whether the dacoity was committed at the time and place and in the manner alleged by the prosecution. PW 2 Yamuna Singh, the informant and PW 1 Md. Enamul Haque stated that when they reached near Mubarakpur Dak Asthan enroute to their native place on a scooter they found the road blocked with a branch of tree in consequence of
