The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable evidence, the need for examination of the Investigating Officer, and the consideration of compromises reached between parties in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 16.10.2003 and order of sentence dated 22.10.2003 passed by the learned VIth Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the aforesaid appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 8 years.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant P.W. 3 -Fatima Bibi stated before the police on 27.03.1989 at about 10.30 pm at Chainpur Police station in the District of Palamau at Daltonganj alleging therein that on the same date 27.03.1989 at about 8.30 pm when she along with her two daughter namely Ashma (P.W.4) and Sazda Begum (P.W. 2) were lying on bed, on seeing a man on her roof, she called Sarfoo, but in the meantime the said accused person jumped in her courtyard and opened the outer door of her house from inside providing opportunity to nine other accused persons to enter inside the house. She further alleged that the dacoits who jumped from her roof into her courtyard were armed with gun to whom she identified as Bhola Singh. She has also identified Surendra Pandey as one of the dacoit armed with pistol. It is further alleged that the accused persons asked the whereabouts of the articles and they also assaulted her. She also alleged that the accused persons also assaulted Ashma and got knowledge of the said articles which were kept for the marriage of her daughter Sazda. It is further alleged that the said dacoits looted away a cash of Rs. 4000/- and ornaments, clothes, utensils worth Rs. 10,000/- from her house. It is further alleged that when the accused persons at the time of returning opened fire on Ram Raj Mistry P.W.1 causing injury to him thereafter the informant along with Ram Raj Sharma came to the police station and got her statement recorded. It is also stated by the informant that on the fateful night her husband Hazar Khan was away from his house.

3. On the basis of aforesaid statement formal FIR was drawn by the appellants and investigation of the case was commenced. After completing of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellant along with one another accused Bhola Singh for the offence punishable u/s 395 IPC on 2.02.1993 and the trial of the case commenced. It appears from the record that the co-accused Bhola Singh absconded during the course of the trial after framing of the charge and the learned trial court has separated the trial vide its order dated 14.05.2003 by splitting the record of this case vide S.T. no. 44A/90 from the present appellant Surender Pandey.

4. After conclusion of the trial of the appellant, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused appellant which is under challenge.

5. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Arguments on behalf of the appellants:-

6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law as well as on facts and as per the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W.3 and P.W. 4 the appellant Surendra Pandey and the co-accused Bhola Singh were known to them from before as they used to visit their house and they reside as their neighbor and often passes in front of their house and according to their further evidence, the accused persons have not covered their face but other accused persons were covered their face which does not appear probable. It has also been pointed out by the learned defence counsel that the P.W.1- Ramraj Sharma was injured and had sustained injuries of gun shot on