The judgment emphasizes the importance of legal proof beyond all shadow of doubt in a criminal trial and highlights that suspicion or claim of identification alone is not sufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. It appears from the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court that the instant appeal so far as it relates to the original appellant no.1, namely, Raju Sah; original appellant no.2, namely, Ramrai Hembrum; original appellant no.5, namely, Kewta Hembram and; original appellant no.6, namely Roshan Hembram, stands abated since it has been stated in the aforesaid order that they have passed away as per the report of the Officer-in-charge, P.S. Kotalpokhar which had been filed by the learned APP. Accordingly, the names of the aforesaid appellants had been deleted and the surviving appellants have been allotted with the new serial numbers.

2. The instant appeal is against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 16th January, 1995, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sahebganj, in Sessions Trial No. 319 of 1991, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted under Section 396 of I.P.C. and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution story in brief as per the Fard Beyan is that in between 21.03.1990-22.03.1990 at village Jambad Santhali Tola, P.S. Kotalpokhar, District-Sahibganj, the informant Mati Soren, P.W. 1, alongwith the deceased persons and other members of the family was sleeping in the house. At about 2:00 a.m., the dacoits armed with pistol and torch after scaling came into the courtyard, they entered into the rooms and began to loot the articles. The dacoits also looted the household articles. They also snatched the silver chain, gold ring, payal, Nakchhod, etc. The dacoits after entering into the house and before killing the deceased persons, led the deceased persons into a room and committed murder and after looting the household articles, they ran away. The informant raised alarm and the villagers arrived and she narrated the incident. The informant alleged that the dacoits had torch and in its light, she identified them.

After the occurrence, the police arrived and her fard beyan was recorded, which has been exhibited as Ext. 9, in presence of the witnesses on the basis of which the FIR had been instituted. The case was registered and the inquest report was prepared (Exts. 8, 8/1 and 8/2). The police also seized the articles and prepared the seizure list (Exts. 10, 10/1, 10/2 and 10/3). The dead bodies were sent for post mortem and after completing the investigation the police submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons.

The appellants having not pleaded guilty, the trial commenced and the testimony of altogether 18 witnesses have been recorded as also the documents have been exhibited basis upon which the learned trial court has found the charges proved against the appellants under Section 396 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

4. Mr. Yasir Arafat, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted by referring to paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment of conviction that the learned trial court has found the cogent evidence from the testimony of P.W. 1 who has deposed in her testimony that she claim to have identified the dacoits who were flashing their torch light and searching and looting the article.

It has been argued that merely on the basis claim being made by P.W. 1 said to have identified the appellants while committing dacoity in her house, the same cannot be said to be cogent evidence to come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the appellants have been found to be proved beyond all shadow of doubt. It has been submitted that the appellants have never been put to TIP as also have not been identified by the P.W. 1, the informant, in the dock in course of trial.

The learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the aforesaid submission has submitted that the finding of the learned trial court since is based upon the claim being made by the P.W. 1 to have identified these appellants as dacoits, cannot be said to be cogent evidence