MAHOMDDIN MIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The appellants of both the appeals have been convicted under section 395 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

(2.) The prosecution case as alleged in the fardbeyan of the informant Bhola Mian is that in the night of 7.7.1997 at 11.30P.M. 15-16 criminals armed with gun, pistol and lathi attacked and assaulted him and his son Md. Taslim and son-in-law Samiullah by fists and slaps and butt of the gun and also assaulted the female inmates of the house and he identified amongst the miscreants Mahomddin, Raghubir Teli, Nathuni Mian of village Balua Raimal and Md. Salim and the miscreants looted away the jewelleries, utensils, clothes and cash worth Rs.40,000/-. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions and after framing of the charge the trial proceeded. During the trial 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The witnesses supported the prosecution case about dacoity. However, P.W.1, Md. Taslim, son of the informant, P.W.2, Dhup Lal Mian, brother of the informant and P.W.7 Shamrul Nisha, wife of Taslim Mian (P.W.1) identified the appellant Mahomddin Mian and four witnesses, namely, P.W.8, the informant Bhola Mian, P.W.1, the son of the informant, P.W.7, Shamrul Nisha, wife of P.W.1, and P.W.10, Jamila Asgari, wife of Md. Yunus, the son of the informant (P.W.4) identified appellant Nathuni Mian.

(3.) The defence of the accused persons is that Mahomddin Mian is the next door neighbour and his house is in front of the house of the informant across the road and Nathuni Mian is resident of the same village as that of the informant but having his house in a different tola, namely, Baliwan Raimal and further that Nathuni Mian and the informant used to engage in the sale and purchase of cattle and due to dispute between them they have falsely been implicated and Mahomddin is the next door neighbour and Pattidar has falsely been implicated in the case. The trial court taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses and in view of the fact that the accused persons have been identified by the witnesses convicted both the appellants and sentenced as mentioned above.