Ajit Kumar Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30 October, 2006 and 31st October, 2006 respectively, passed in Sessions Case No. 232 of 2005, arising out of Jama Police Station Case No. 110 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the learned 5 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka (F.T.C.), while acquitting one of the accused, namely, Santosh Kumar Mandal of the charges, has convicted the appellant and one another for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and further imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/ - each and in default of payment to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.
(2.) THE prosecution case, which is based on the Fard -beyan (Ext. 1/1), given by one Jona Kisku (PW 5) before the then Sub Inspector of Police, Jama Police Station, on 7.12.2004 at about 11.45 a.m., in brief, is set out as under: The informant Jona Kisku (PW 5) was sleeping along with his family members at about 11.30 p.m. on 6.12.2004, he woke up due to disturbance and asked for a torch from his wife Mayansi Paswan (PW 1) who started searching. Meanwhile, the miscreants came to him and pointed out a dagger and asked for Sona because his name was written in the voter list as Sona Kisku. Thereafter, they overpowered him and threatened his wife and children to kill. On raising Hulla, the miscreants took away one Philips Radio, Philips Two -in -One Tape -recorder, two ladies H.M.T. watches, two Banarsi Sari along with other Saries (40 pieces), paint -shirt, house hold utensils and Rs. 21,000/ - in cash as well as golden and silver jewellaries. Thereafter, the charged persons entered into the house of his nephew, which was towards the west of his house and took away Rs. 13,000/ - in cash, house -hold utensils, jewellaries etc. On the basis of this information, Jama Police Station Case No. 110 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and the then Sub Inspector of Police Mr. Anil Kumar investigated the matter and during course of investigation, accused Ganesh Pujhar was apprehended. The case of the prosecution is that based on the confessional statement of co -accused Ganesh Pujhar the name of other co -accused, including the appellant, cropped up. He also disclosed about whereabouts of the looted articles and, accordingly, Test Identification Parade was conducted and the articles were identified, which led to arrest of other co -accused, including the appellant herein. The prosecution case is that the appellant herein was also identified in the Test Identification Parade and charge sheet was, accordingly, filed before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka and ultimately the records were later transferred to the file of learned Sessions Judge, Dumka for trial.
(3.) IN the instant case the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses, namely, PW 1 (Nenansi Paswan), PW 2 (Churki Soren), PW 3 (Deepali Kisku), PW 4 (Charlis Kisku), PW 5 (Sona Kisku) and PW 6 (Shiv Narayan Ram, I.O. of this case). PW 1 (Nenansi Paswan) is the wife of the informant PW 5 (Sona Kisku) whereas PW 4 (Charlis Kisku) is a constable and next -door neighbour of the informant. Certain documents have also been exhibited as Ext. 1 (signature of Sona Kisku on the Fard -beyan) and Ext. 1 (Fard -beyan).;