Ramanuj Singh vs The State of Bihar

B.N.P. Singh, J.—When house inmates were fast asleep, a dacoity was committed in the dwelling house of Ram Balak Mahto (P.W. 7) in the intervening nights of 6th/7th March, 1978 at about mid-night when the miscreants having gained access in the house assaulted Ram Balak Mahto and Bidya Devi (P.W. 8) and removed house belongings which include utensils, ornaments, wearing apparels and eventually decamped with the booty. After the police was set in motion, as usual, investigation commenced, in course of which the police officer appointed as investigating officer of the case visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses and on conclusion of investigation laid chargesheet before the Court. Though initially trial commenced against Gangeshwar Gorait, Jogendra Singh and the Appellant, it seems that due to abscondence of the Appellant, the trial became conclusive only against two others, who were put on trial and the trial Court on appreciation of evidence while acquitted Jogendra Singh of the charges, recorded finding of guilt against Gangeshwar Gorait u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years. After the Appellant was apprehended, the trial commenced against him in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1990/3/1993 when the State examined altogether eleven witnesses which include Ram Balak Mahto, other house inmates and also host of other witnesses.

The defence of the Appellant before the Court below and also this Court has been that of innocence, and he ascribed false implication due to land dispute pending with Ram Balak Mahto, and the trial Court while rejecting defence of the Appellant and placing implicit reliance on the testimony of witnesses, recorded finding of guilt u/s 395 I.P.C. and sentenced Appellant to suffer R.I. for a term of seven years which is under challenge in this appeal.

At the threshold contentions were on behalf of the Appellant that though Vidya Devi, P.W. 8, and Bachchi Devi, P.W. 9, stated to have identified the Appellant in course of commission of dacoity, assertions made by them could be belied for the reason that though Ram Balak Mahto his early version which he rendered before the police had implicitly stated complicity of Krishna, Gangeshwar Gorai and others, assertion was made about complicity of the Appellant. Reiterating his submission a is urged that it was most unlikely that had the Appellant been among the miscreants and Vidya Devi and Bachchi Devi would have identified him, his complicity would not be disclosed to Ram Balak Mahto by them. Other contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant was that though the two witnesses claimed identification of the Appellant, means of identification was not disclosed by them in their evidences and, in quick succession, it is urged that though Vidya Devi stated to have sustained stab injuries at the hands of the Appellants, no finding if any recorded by doctor about injuries on the person of Vidya Devi, was ever placed on the records, and the last argument was that the Appellant had been in custody for more than three years and false implication of the Appellants in back-drop of the land dispute between the parties was not a remote possibility.

Though factum of dacoity was not in dispute, as there had been evidence of other witnesses too on this score who am Brajesh Nandan Singh, P.W. 1 and Kauleshwar Singh, P.W. 2. Those who were tendered by the State were P.W. 3, Lakhan Mistri, Jahir Sah, P.W. 4, Deep Prakash Singh, P.W. 5 and Mahesh Singh, P.W. 10 and there was nothing material in their evidences to merit consideration. The disturbing feature of the prosecution case was that Uda Devi, P.W. 6, who was one of the house inmates though admitted factum of dacoity, had not lent assurance to the prosecution allegation about complicity of the Appellant. Now coming to the testimony of P.Ws. 8 and 9 their attentions were drawn by defence that no such narration about complicity of the Appellant was made by them either before the police or before sessions Court in sessions trial No. 55 of 1980 where they did not claim identification of any of the miscreants. Since investigating officer was not examined at trial, these contradictions could not be brought on the record. Narration made by the witnesses in sessions trial No. 55 of 1980 is on the record, which explicitly negatived assertion, made by them about identification of the Appellant. Now coming to the testimony of Bachchi Devi, P.W. 9, it can be noticed that though she stated that she had been usually visiting Fatehpur, which was the place of abode of the Appellant, it was most unlikely that had she identified the Appellant, would not have disclosed his complicity to her husband, who instituted police case in which though complicity of others, transpired, that of the Appellant was conspicuously wanting.

When this appeal was taken up for hearing, informations were obtained from the Registry about pendency of any appeal, if preferred by Gangeshwar Gorai who was convicted in sessions trial No. 55 of 1980, and the report submitted by the Registry was in negative.

Having given my anxious and deepest consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and also evidences placed on the record, I find that the finding recorded by Court below based on the testimony of P.Ws. 8 and 9 was not sustainable, in view of the infirmities that has crept in their evidences, and that being so, the finding recorded by the Court below is set aside and the Appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is discharged also from the liability of the bail-bond. The appeal is allowed.