- (1.) By Court. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2002 and 09.09.2002 respectively, passed by learned 8th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Sessions Trial No. 18/2001, convicting the appellants under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for five years.
(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on 9.11.1999 at about 11.30 P.M., the informant-constable-Ram Narain Rai ( P.W-2) along with constable Mahesh Prasad Singh ( not examined) boarded the Bus at Hazaribagh along with cash Rs.58,005/- in a Bag for payment to trainee constables. The informant had Rs.5500/- in his pocket, which was his salary. When the Bus reached near Urma More, the miscreants started committing dacoity on the point of Revolver and then snatched the cash from the informant including six round of government Revolver. The bus stopped in a lonely place. All the five culprits who boarded as passengers looted the said amounts and also the amount of sale of tickets from the conductor and a sum of Rs.8,000/- from constable Mahesh Prasad Singh. About 5-6 culprits were present from before where the Bus stopped and after committing dacoity, all of them fled away. The informant gave description of the culprits who boarded the Bus. The informant along -2- with Mahesh Prasad Singh, driver and conductor went to Chandwara O.P., where the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by S.I. Dular Sahu ( P.W.1).
(3.) Mr. B.V. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants in both the cases, challenged the impugned judgement on various grounds. He submitted that when chargesheet was submitted only against these two appellants, the trial could not proceed under section 395 IPC and that the informant ( P.W-2) identified appellant-Rajendra Pandey only. The appellant-Bhola Mian @ Najmul Hoda was identified by constableMahesh Prasad Singh and one Ram Jee Tiwary but they were not examined as witnesses. Even as per the Investigating Officer ( P.W-1), the appellants were arrested from their houses on the basis of suspicion and that such identification itself is doubtful and that both the appellants were found tobe limping in court and therefore it was not clear as to about which appellant the informant described as one of the miscreants who was said to be "langra". He lastly submitted that the appellant-Rajendra Pandey has remained in jail for a total period of three years and one month and appellant-Bhola Mian has remained in jail for a total period of four years and one month and that they have suffered this case from 1999 and no useful purpose will be served by sending them jail for serving out the balance sentence after about 10 years of the judgement.;