- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.09.2001 and order of sentence dated 25.09.2001 passed by Shri U.N. Singh, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 1994, by which judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found all the three appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 398 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
(2.) THE Prosecution case was started on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the informant Parmanand Tiwary stating therein that on 02.05.1991 at about 7.45 A.M., when he was going from Lohardaga to Chatra through State Transport Bus bearing registration No. BEG -1738 to attend a V.I.P. duty along with other police officials including Bahdula Bari, Ramkrit Singh, Suryakant Barayee and when the bus reached at about 7.45 A.M. near Hotap Ghati then 5 -6 criminals stopped the bus by putting a truck in front of State Transport Bus, thereby they started rebuking the inmates of the bus to open the door and also fired over them on account of delay in opening the door of the bus. The criminals further stated that if gates are not open quickly, they will blow the bus by bomb. Out of fear, when the door was opened, then three persons entered into the bus loaded with pistol and chhura. The informant was on V.I.P. duty and has service revolver. The accused persons started coming towards him when he asked them not to come, then the accused fired upon him. He saved himself and then another accused fired upon him causing injury to one passenger namely Chandershekhar Jha and he injured. Thereafter, he made three firing causing injury to the first accused, who had fired upon him, then he fell down and he overpowered him. Thereafter, other accused persons ran away from the bus. Then, the injured accused discloses his name as Dharmender Uraon. The revolver and chhura along with blank cartridges were recovered. On the basis of the said statement, two cases were registered and two trial were held. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have wrongly been found guilty by the trial court. It has further been submitted that the identification of the accused has not been properly been proved. It has came in the evidence that T.I. Parade was held in which the informant and the witness have identified by accused appellants but neither T.I. Parade has been proved nor the investigating officer has been examined and thus the judgment and conviction in the case is bad in law and hence it is liable to be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, it is clear that all the appellants along with other had made confirmation of the dacoity in the bus and only because the informant party was going to Chatra in V.I.P. duty and they had armed with the revolver, the accused appellants were apprehended and others ran away and the bus was saved and thus the appellants have rightly been convicted.;