Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 764 (JHR)

Ramdeo Uraon v. State of Jharkhand

2009-05-14

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT By court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.09.2001 and order of sentence dated 25.09.2001 passed by Shri U.N. Singh, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 1994, by which judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found all the three appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 398 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. The Prosecution case was started on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the informant Parmanand Tiwary stating therein that on 02.05.1991 at about 7.45 A.M., when he was going from Lohardaga to Chatra through State Transport Bus bearing registration No. BEG-1738 to attend a V.I.P. duty along with other police officials including Bahdula Bari, Ramkrit Singh, Suryakant Barayee and when the bus reached at about 7.45 A.M. near Hotap Ghati then 5-6 criminals stopped the bus by putting a truck in front of State Transport Bus, thereby they started rebuking the inmates of the bus to open the door and also fired over them on account of delay in opening the door of the bus. The criminals further stated that if gates are not open quickly, they will blow the bus by bomb. Out of fear, when the door was opened, then three persons entered into the bus loaded with pistol and chhura. The informant was on V.I.P. duty and has service revolver. The accused persons started coming towards him when he asked them not to come, then the accused fired upon him. He saved himself and then another accused fired upon him causing injury to one passenger namely Chandershekhar Jha and he injured. Thereafter, he made three firing causing injury to the first accused, who had fired upon him, then he fell down and he overpowered him. Thereafter, other accused persons ran away from the bus. Then, the injured accused discloses his name as Dharmender Uraon. The revolver and chhura along with blank cartridges were recovered. On the basis of the said statement, two cases were registered and two trial were held. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have wrongly been found guilty by the trial court. It has further been submitted that the identification of the accused has not been properly been proved. On the basis of the said statement, two cases were registered and two trial were held. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have wrongly been found guilty by the trial court. It has further been submitted that the identification of the accused has not been properly been proved. It has came in the evidence that T.I. Parade was held in which the informant and the witness have identified by accused appellants but neither T.I. Parade has been proved nor the investigating officer has been examined and thus the judgment and conviction in the case is bad in law and hence it is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, it is clear that all the appellants along with other had made confirmation of the dacoity in the bus and only because the informant party was going to Chatra in V.I.P. duty and they had armed with the revolver, the accused appellants were apprehended and others ran away and the bus was saved and thus the appellants have rightly been convicted. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution has examined five witnesses in order to prove the charges leveled against the appellants. 6. The informant, Parmanand Tiwary was examined as P.W.2 and P.W.2 in his statement before the court stated that two T.I. Parade were held and in the first T.I. Parade, he identified Ramdeo Uraon and Raj Kumar Uraon and in the second T.I. Parade he identified Raman Turi. Further, P.W.2 identified only one accused Ramdeo Uraon in Court. P.W.4, Ramkrit Singh claimed to identify the three accused persons Ramdeo Uraon, Raj Kumar Uraon and Ramesh Uraon. Both the witnesses have stated the same story that they were going through the bus for doing V.I.P. duty to Chatra when the bus was stopped by putting a truck in front of the bus and thereafter three accused persons entered into the bus loaded with pistol and chhura and one of the miscreants fired upon the informant Parmanand Tiwaryand and when he saved himself, the other accused fired causing injury to one of the passengers. Thereafter, the informant fired upon the first accused person causing injury to him. Thereafter, the informant fired upon the first accused person causing injury to him. He fell down and he was overpowered. P.W.2, Parmanand Tiwary identified only two accused namely Ramdeo Uraon and Raj Kumar Uraon in the T.I. Parade and in the court. P.W.2, Suryakant Barayee identified only one accused namely Ramdeo Uraon. 7. Accordingly, the three appellants were found guilty under Sections 398 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. After going through the evidences, it appears that in this trial, P.W.2., Parmanand Tiwary stated that two T.I. Parade were held. In first T.I. Parade he identified Ramdeo Uraon and Raj Kumar uraon, while in second T.I. Parade he identified Raman Turi. While in the analogous Trial arising out of the same First Information Report S. T. No. 1 of 1993, the witness Parmanand Tiwary stated that in T.I. Parade he identified only two accused Ramdeo Uraon and Raj Kumar Uraon. On the basis of his statement, the Sessions Judge acquitted Raman Turi and Ramesh Uraon in S.T. No. 01 of 1993. Thus, he claimed here that in the second T.I. Parade, he identified appellant Raman Turi becomes doubtful. Accordingly, Raman Turi is given benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges under Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code. His appeal is allowed. He is directed to be enlarged forthwith, if in custody. 9. As far as appellants Ramdeo Uraon and Raj Kumar are concerned, there is sufficient evidence and identification by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and the charges under 398 of the Indian Penal Code has fully been proved against them. Accordingly, the appeal of Ramdeo Uraon and Raj Kumar Uraon are dismissed. 10. It is submitted that appellants Ramdeo Uraon and Raj Kumar Uraon were not granted bail and hence they have remained in jail or have served out the sentence. The trial court will verify the matter and then only issue warrant of arrest for serving out the sentence. 11. Thus, I find no merit in the appeal of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 namely Ramdeo Uraon and Raj Kumar Uraon, which is dismissed and the appeal of appellant No.3, Raman Turi is allowed. He should be enlarged forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.