Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 781 (JHR)

Karu Mian v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2005-10-20

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment date 8.4.1992 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1992, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Karu Mian for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that in the night of 10/11th April, 1989 at about 10.45 p.m. the informant Uday Shankar Singh @ Chunna Singh, M.L.A., Sarath was returning from Dhanbad to Sarath in his car bearing No. DHB-7612 alongwith Dashrath Prasad Roy, Paresh Chandra Bhokta (PW 1), Umesh Chandra Roy (PW 2). When they reached near Village Pathaljore, (hey found that the road was blocked by putting boulders. The car was being driven by the driver Md. Moiz Khan (PW 3). The driver had to stop the car near the obstruction. As soon as the car stopped 10.12 criminals appeared on the scene and surrounded the car. Thereafter, the criminal looted away the belongings of the informant and his other companions including that of the driver. On hulla raised by the informant party several villagers assembled at the place of occurrence and then the informant and others could see and identify the appellant Karu Mian, as one of the dacoit, who had taken part in the alleged dacoity. The appellant who was identified by the informant as one of the dacoit, his name was disclosed by the villagers as Karu Mian. The FIR was lodged just after one hour of the occurrence. 3. The defence of the appellant was complete denial of the prosecution story and of false implication. 4. The charges were framed against the appellant under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In order to establish the charges on behalf of the prosecution altogether five prosecution witnesses were examined. Out of them PW 5 was a formal witness, who proved the FIR (Ext. 2). PW 4 was Binod Kumar Pandey, the Investigating Officer, PW 3 Moiz Khan was the driver of the informant. 5. In order to establish the charges on behalf of the prosecution altogether five prosecution witnesses were examined. Out of them PW 5 was a formal witness, who proved the FIR (Ext. 2). PW 4 was Binod Kumar Pandey, the Investigating Officer, PW 3 Moiz Khan was the driver of the informant. PW 1 Paresh Chandra Bhokta and PW 2 Uday Chandra Roy were the two companion of the informant who accompanied him in the car on the date and time of occurrence and they had also become the victim of the dacoity. 6. The learned trial Court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, adduced on behalf of the prosecution held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian, Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years. However, he held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and, thereby, acquitted the appellant from the said charge. 7. Mr. Anuj Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant mainly submitted that the identification of the appellant was very much doubtful. Since no T.I. parade was held and, therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the identification of the appellant as one of the dacoit who committed the alleged dacoity. It was further submitted that the informant party were not knowing the appellant from before and according to the prosecution the name of the appellant was disclosed by the villagers who had not seen the occurrence and, therefore, the story of identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses cannot be believed. Accordingly, it was submitted that the prosecution was not able to establish the identification of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. In order to test the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant let us scrutinize the evidence adduced by the prosecution. PW 1 Paresh Chandra in his deposition has stated that in the night of 10/11th April 1989 he was coming from Dhanbad to Sarath alongwith the informant Uday Shankar Singh @ Chunna Singh, M.L.A. and Dashrath Prasad Roy, Umesh Chandra Roy in a car bearing No. DHB-7612, which was being driven by the driver Moiz Khan. When the car reached near village Pathaljore it stopped as the road was blocked by putting the stones. When the car reached near village Pathaljore it stopped as the road was blocked by putting the stones. At that time 10-15 dacoits appeared at the scene of occurrence, who were variously armed and, thereafter, they assaulted the driver and took away the belongings of the occupants of the car. This witness has given the description of the dacoits who had committed the occurrence. He specifically stated that the face of all the dacoits were open. He further stated that he could identify one of the dacoit who was there with the mob of villagers at the scene of the occurrence and the name of the said dacoit was disclosed as Karu Mian by the villagers who were assembled at the place of occurrence. This witness also identified the appellant in the dock. 9. PW 2 Umesh Chandra Roy was another occupant of the car alongwith the informant and he was also a victim of the occurrence. He has fully corroborated the statement of PW 1. This witness specifically stated that he could identify the appellant Karu Mian amongst the villagers and name of the appellant was disclosed by the villagers. He also identified the appellant in the dock. 10. PW 3 Moiz Khan was the driver of the car, who has also supported the case of the prosecution in toto but he could not identified the appellant in the dock. 11. PW 4 is the Investigating Officer, who stated that the house of the appellant Karu Mian was situated about 100 yards North of the place of the occurrence and he arrested him on the next date of the occurrence. 12. From the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 it is clear that both the witnesses identified the appellant at the place of occurrence itself, who was present amongst the villagers and his name was disclosed by the villagers when these two witnesses pointed out the appellant to be one of the dacoit, who committed the offence alleged. Therefore, in such a situation holding of T.I. parade was not essential. Therefore, even if, no T.I, parade was held that was of no consequence and the identification of the appellant was fully established by the PWs 1 and 2. 13. Therefore, in such a situation holding of T.I. parade was not essential. Therefore, even if, no T.I, parade was held that was of no consequence and the identification of the appellant was fully established by the PWs 1 and 2. 13. Though the informant was not examined by the prosecution in this case but that does not affect the case of the prosecution, as the same was fully proved beyond all reasonable doubt by PW 1 and PW 2, who were most reliable witnesses. 14. In view of the above discussions and findings, I find that the learned trial Court rightly held that the prosecution was able to establish the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 395, IPC and sentenced him accordingly. 15. Accordingly, having found no merit in this appeal the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence.