NAGA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) committed dacoity in the house of the informant Haroon Sardar and also in the nearby houses of four other person in the village Bhoj Pandual Tola Gazba P.S. Bisfi district Madhubani and in course of committing dacoity they also assaulted the informant and others. One accused Mukhteshwar Yadav alias Mukesh Yadav, had also been tried with the appellants, but was found not guilty and acquitted the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) The informant Haroon Sardar went to Bisfi P. S. at about 8.15 a. m. on 1-6-1981 and lodged first information report (Ext. 3). The case stated in the first information report is that at about 10-15 p. m. the informant had come out of his house for urination whereupon he was surrounded by 15 to 20 persons who were variously armed with Bhala, Farsa and Lathi and they were also Sashing torches and they dragged him into his house and looted the properties. In the light of the torches he could identify the accused persons including the appellants, and finding that most of them were of his village and some of adjoining village, he remarked as to why they, being neighbours, had come to commit dacoity in his house. He was threatend to be killed and one of the dacoits named Naga Yadav armed with a Farsa gave a Farsa blow on his neck but it could hit them on the head. He however, managed to run out of his house and raised hull a whereupon a large number of the villagers came and on seeing them the dacoits ran away alongwith the body. After the departure of the dacoits he found that several person had been injured and they too gave out that they had identified several accused which included the appellants. In the first information report, the informant also gave a list of the various article which are said to have been stolen by the dacoits from his own house well as from the other houses where also the dacoity had been committed. The police submitted charge-sheet in the case and in due course the appellants and Mukesh Yadav were put on trial resulting in conviction and sentence of the appellants as indicated above.

(3.) The defence of the accused person is that they are either co-villagers of the informant and other alleged victims of the dacoity, or residents of the neighbouring village and that they have been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of their enimies.