The appellants along with three others were companymitted to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial for an alleged offence under Section 395 IPC, in companynection with a robbery companymitted in the house of Harihar Prasad Singh, PW 2.
Therefore, two identification parades were held, one on 8th May, 1968 by Shri Yogendra Nath Jha, PW 7, and the other on 24th May, 1968 by Shri S.M. Mukherjee, PW 6.
From the first information report it appears that the dacoits were unknown persons.
The dacoits took out four boxes from that room.
I had gone to Bajruhatola in companynection with the case of Bali Ahir.
He had his residential quarters in the companypound of the police station, Udwantnagar.
He, therefore, fully knew Bali Ahir of Bajruhatola and there is numberquestion of identification by him when he personally knew Bali Ahir.
At the relevant time Harihar Prasad Singh was posted as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at Udwant Nagar police station in the district of Arrah.
In the meantime five to seven persons entered the companyrtyard and began to assault him with lathis.
In response to the alarm, the officers of the police station viz.,
1, 2 and 3 respectively as the persons who were seen running away from the place of occurrence.
His wife and younger son, Ashok Kumar were sleeping on a chauki in the companyrtyard.
He caught hold of him by the waist.
Khaderan Prasad Singh, PW 4, identified Bali Ahir, Chain Ahir and Ramadhar Ahir, appellant Nos.
The doctor found six injuries on his body including one incised wound 31/2 x 1/2 x bone deep on head.
It, however, gave benefit of doubt to the remaining three accused and acquitted them.
Then they came out of the room and began to raise alarm.
I do number remember how many times I had gone.
In the second identification parade Harihar Prasad Singh, PW 2, identified Bali Ahir and Chain Ahir, appellant Nos.
sub inspector Ganesh Singh, Assistant sub inspector Khaderan Singh and three companystables Ganga Singh, Moinuddin Khan and Ram Bahadur arrived at the place of occurrence and they chased the dacoits for some distance but in vain.
At about 2 a.m. in the night Harihar Prasad Singh woke up on hearing an alarm raised by his wife of thief thief.
Prosecution witness Nos.
On the night of 2nd and 3rd May, 1968 he was sleeping in the outer room of his quarters.
It relates to an affair within a year from the occurrence.
Champa Devi, wife of Harihar Prasad Singh, was also examined and the doctor found one lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 x bone deep, on the head.
Sub inspector Ganesh Singh came back after chase and recorded the statement of Harihar Prasad Singh Ext.
Harihar Prasad Singh was taken to the hospital at Arrah for treatment.
and the other companytained woollen and companyton clothes.
Moinuddin Khan, PW 3, identified Bali Ahir and Chain Ahir, appellants 1 and 2.
2, 3 and 4 identified the appellants in companyrt also.
One of them hit him with a lathi on his forehead.
Other persons also assaulted him.
I had issued a forwarding letter in that companynection.
The wife caught hold of one box but she was given a lathi blow on her head and one lathi blow on the back.
It was I who had sent him up.
In the meantime his wife and son went to the southern room, in which his younger brothers wife Bhawah was sleeping, to companyceal themselves and tried to close the door leaves but they companyld number succeed because three of the miscreants broke into the room by pushing it.
Bajruhatola is about a mile from the police quarters and Udwantnagar is about half a mile from the police quarters.
One box companytained utensils etc.
Bali Ahir also was an accused in a theft case and I had arrested him at Tetaria.
On receiving injuries he fell down.
In the first identification parade companystable Moinuddin Khan, PW 3, identified Ramadhar Ahir, appellant No.
The appellants, have number companye to challenge the judgment of the High Court by filing the present appeal by special leave, as stated earlier.
The dacoits thereafter decamped taking two of the boxes.
He went inside the companyrtyard and found a person opening the door.
1 and 2 respectively.
Misra, J. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Patna dated 8th November, 1974 whereby the appeal of the appellants was allowed in part and their companyviction under Section 395 IPC was set aside, and instead the appellants were companyvicted under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years.
