Panchu Rai and Jai Kishun Rai vs State of Bihar

R.N. Sahay, J.—This appeal preferred from jail by Appellants Pa Rai and Jai Kishun Rai who were victed by the Sessions Judge, Sitar in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 1983. The Appellants were tried along with four ot(sic) The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons including these Appellants u/s 395 I.P.C and sentences undergo rigorous imprisonment for years each. The Appellants remained in custody for seven before they were released by this Court. The remaining four accused persons preferred Cr. App. No. 375/87. How despite bench order Cr. App. No. 37 was heard by another bench who b(sic) judgment dated 20th September, dismissed the appeal but modified sentenced to the period already u(sic) gone by the Appellants. The evidence against these Appellants is similar to of the evidence against the Appellant Cr. App. No. 375/87.

In the night between 15th May, 1982, there was an occurrence of dacoity in the house of informant Badri Narayan Sah of village Kohbarba, P.S. Sonbarsa, in the district of Sitamarhi. On the same night dacoity was also committed in the house of Kheru Sah and Ramshreth Sah. The accused persons were arrested after few days on suspicion and were put on T.I. parade. They were identified by the inmates of the house in which dacoity was committed.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the evidence against these Appellants is not reliable. Appellant Panchu Rai said that he had pox mark on his face which was prominent. In the T.I. parade no person with pox mark was placed for identification among the Appellants. The magistrate who conducted the parade stated that at the time of T.I. parade no such mark was visible. The learned Judge relied on the statement of T.I. magistrate when he could have hi,m-self judged whether pox mark was visible. The pox mark from childhood must have been prominent and hence the magistrate conducted the parade should have taken all precautions.

According to the evidence several witnesses have identified both the Appellants. The learned Judge has accepted the evidence and I find no reason to differ with his finding particularly when conviction of the remaining Appellants on similar evidence has been affirmed by this Court.

Both the Appellants remained in custody for a considerable time. The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence, as above.