- (1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.05.2004 and 24.05.2004 respectively, passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Palamau, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 126/2002 convicting the appellant under Sections 148, 353/149, 332/149, 307/149, 302/149 and 379/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment. The life imprisonment naturally is against the conviction for the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code which covered the other sentences. The prosecution case in short is that a written report was lodged by Kedar Ram, ASI on 13.04.2001 at about 2:00 p.m. to the following effect. That in the previous night i.e. on 12.04.2001 at about 7:00 p.m., the patrolling party led by him was coming. All of a sudden, the extremists, members of MCCI, who were in ambush, resorted indiscriminate firing on Police force as a result one bullet hit the driver after breaking the windscreen and due to that, the driver lost the control and the vehicle stuck to a ditch on the left side. The Police party too, in defence, opened fire on the extremists. One constable Sita Ram sustained bullet injury and collapsed on the spot and, thereafter, the extremists looted away his rifle. Another bullet of the extremists passed touching the body of Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W. -2) due to which, he sustained injuries. Similarly, constable Binod Kumar Tiwary (P.W. -15), Yugesh Kumar and Sujay Prasad Singh (P.W. -11) also sustained bullet injuries due to the firings caused by the extremists. The extremists looted away three rifles and disappeared into the dark. The Home Guard Amresh Mahto (Driver) could not be immediately traced out but later his dead body was found.
(2.) Mr. T.R. Bajaj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned Judgment and submitted as under. The informant has not been examined in this case The investigation of this case was not properly done otherwise positive materials could have come and the alleged looted rifles could be recovered. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer has prejudiced the case of the appellant. He further submitted that the conviction is based on identification made by the P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5, which are not reliable. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has not been examined. He would have been the best person to say as to whether the light of the Police vehicle could remain on, after it turned turtle. " Moreover, in such light the witnesses could not identify the miscreants.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, Learned Counsel for the State supported the impugned Judgment.;