K.P. Deo, J. - (1.) The instant Criminal Appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2003 and order of sentence dated 23.09.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2002, whereby seven appellants have been convicted by the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Ushman Mian (appellant in Cri. Appeal (SJ) No. 1842 of 2003) has further been convicted under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence committed under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for seven years to Ushman Mian for offence committed under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeals have been preferred before this Court, which are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) The prosecution case as made out in the First Informant Report is based upon the fardbeyan of Abraham Tigga (P.W. 7), recorded by S.I. Ahmad Ali, officer-in-charge, Sadar P.S. on 19.09.2001 at 10.55 hrs., where the informant has alleged that in the night of 18.09.2001 at around 7.00 p.m. (19 hrs.), seven accused persons entered into his house from the western side and all the accused persons asked his son, whether guardian is available in the house or not? In the meantime, the informant returned from Daltonganj and since, the accused persons have seen the informant, they said 'lal salaam and they have disclosed that ' uncle we are partywala coming from Paanki and our commander has sent us before you for bringing Rs. 10,000/-', upon which the informant said that, from where he will get money, as the children are studying, upon which the accused person said that if you will not give us money, we will kidnap your son. When informant's son tried to go out of the house, the accused persons stopped him. One of the accused, short in height, took out the pistol, some of the accused persons have also went into the house of his neighbour, Vinay Toppo. All the accused persons, under the threat of pistol searched the entire house. The informant's sister-in-law, Irma Tirkey was guest in the house of the informant. The accused persons have taken Rs. 3000/- from her box. Similarly they have taken Rs. 2500/- from the house of Vinay Toppo, one golden locket with pearl, along with one lady Titan golden watch, from the house of Vinay Toppo. All the accused persons were in the age group of 30-35 years, one of the accused was in the age group of 35-40 years. The accused persons were wearing pant-shirt and they have also turban and some accused were having shaved head. One of the accused was wearing jeans pant and banyan. One accused was healthy, dark in complexion having comparatively long moustache and hair, who seemed to be the leader of the group. All the accused persons have committed 'lootpat' in the house and subsequently fled away towards the west, to the dam side. The accused persons have also taken their meal and while they were going, they have given threatening. The informant has identified the accused persons in the electrical bulb and claimed to identify them, after seeing them. Because of the late night, the informant did not inform the police. The accused persons conversed among themselves in Hindi language.
(3.) On the basis of the fardbeyan, police instituted Sadar P.S. Case No. 303/2001 dated 19.09.2001 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation of the case, the police submitted final form, charge sheeting the accused vide charge sheet No. 171 of 2001 dated 24.12.2001 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and 412 of the Indian Penal Code against Ram Swaroop Singh alias Nagendra Singh alias Swaroop Singh, Lakhan Singh, Khurshid Ansari, Usman Mian, Manoj Mehta, Abdul Rashid alias Abul Ansari and Anwar Ansari. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 11.01.2002 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 16.01.2002. ;