VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the appellant has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.7.1998 and 27.7.1998 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 1994/Trial No. 139 of 1994 by Sri Dhananjay Prasad Singh, 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. However, co -accused Safdar Ansari was not found guilty under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was accordingly acquitted.
(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan of PW 1 Ram Lochan Prasad Gupta recorded by S.I. J.N. Singh of Ratu P.S. on 24.9.1992 at 4.30 hours at his house at village Banapiri regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 23.9.1992 at 19.30 hours in his house in the said village in which several ornaments worth Rs. 6,000/ - from the box have been taken away by the dacoits and a case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, against the appellant, and the acquitted co -accused Safdar Ansari and four unknown dacoits was instituted on 24.9.1992 at 8.15 hours by drawing of a formal FIR (Ext. 2). The formal FIR and the fardbeyan have been received on 24.9.1992 in the Court empowered to take cognizance. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW 1, the informant, alongwith his family members was taking his meal inside his house at 19.30 hours on 23.9.1992 when he heard the rattling sound at his door and on query it was told that it is Manoj who is knocking at the door and thinking the said Manoj as the son of his brother -in -law the informant opened the door and six dacoits entered into his house and two of them were armed with pistol and one dacoit was armed with a dagger and they enquired from him as to where he has kept the cash failing which he shall be done to death and on his refusal to disclose in respect thereof they broke the box and started searching for money. It is further alleged that his daughter PW 4 Sushila Kumari and his son PW 2 Surendra Prasad Gupta confined themselves in room and started raising alarms as a result of which the villagers started collecting at his house and one of the dacoits told his companions to flee away from there as the villagers are assembling at the house of the informant and, thereafter, the dacoits confined the informant and the other inmates of his family in a room and in course of that he has identified co - accused Sambal Ansari, resident of his village in the flash of torch. The prosecution case further is that one of the dacoits was in the same room breaking boxes in which the informant and others were confined by the dacoits and the other dacoits were not aware of the fact regarding the presence of the said dacoit in the said room which was bolted by them from outside. It is alleged that the said dacoits seeing the informant and others in the said room started running hither and thither with a view to flee away but he could not escape in view of the fact that door of the said room was bolted from outside and he started assaulting the informant by a dagger causing injury on the chest of the informant and when the villagers opened the door of the said room to take out the informant and others the said dacoit had concealed himself climbing over the patni and he was caught by the villagers and he disclosed his name on query as Sultan Ansari, son of Sahamat Ansari resident of village Basila O.P. Nagari P.S. Ratu. It is also alleged that persons collected at the place of occurrence has also assaulted the said dacoit. The prosecution case further is that several ornaments worth Rs. 6,000/ - belonging to PW 6 Manorma, the daughter -in -law of the informant were taken away by the dacoits. It is also alleged that he has seen all the dacoits in the light of lantern and he claims to identify them.
(3.) THE appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been contended that the appellant has come to village Banapiri to the house of his relative and on alarm he had gone to the house of the informant where he was apprehended by the co - villagers under suspicion. However, in the written argument it has been stated that there had been an altercation between this appellant and the son of the informant and the appellant has beaten the son of the informant and thereafter the family members of the informant caught the appellant and brutally assaulted him and locked him in a room of his house and when the relatives of the appellant came with the police force for the rescue of the appellant, a false case of dacoity has been set up implicating the appellant therein.;