S. Abdul Nazeer JUDGMENT
N.V. Ramana, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3rd August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 447 of 2001, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Accused--Appellant herein and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gaya.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as culled out from the case of prosecution are that in the intervening night of 11th and 12th January, 1999 a group of assailants consisting 10 to 12 persons including the Appellant herein, all aged between 20 to 25 years, barged into the house of one Kamdeo Singh of the village Banbareya, P.S. Muffasil, District Gaya and decamped with golden ornaments, pants and cash. In the protest by the inmates of the house, the assailants caused injuries to Kamdeo Singh, his father-in-law Kameshwar Singh, son Niraj Kumar (PW2), wife Sita Devi and daughter-in-law Reena Devi. The stolen items include golden bangle, golden rings, cash of Rs. 5,000/- and altogether the worth of stolen property would be Rs. 25,000/-. At about 2 am in the night, Kamdeo Singh lodged a complaint with the Muffasil police, on the basis of which a case Under Section 395/412, Indian Penal Code was registered against unknown persons. Zamil Ashgar (PW10)--Officer in-charge of the Muffasil P.S. took up the investigation and rushed to the place of occurrence. He recorded statement (Ext. 4) of Kamdeo Singh (PW3), prepared injury reports in respect of the inmates of the house and sent them to hospital for treatment. As the injured Kameshwar Singh had succumbed to the injuries, charged Under Section 396, Indian Penal Code was replaced for the offence Under Section 395, Indian Penal Code against the Accused. In the course of further investigation, police arrested some of the Accused, recorded their statements, recovered some money from them. Out of the six Accused persons charged with the offence, one Rameshwari Manjhi @ Umeshwari Manjhi has been declared as absconder. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been implicated falsely, therefore, wanted to be tried.
3. At the trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as eleven witnesses. Relying upon the incriminating material as well as depositions and confessional statements of the Accused, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the Accused for the offence punishable Under Section 396, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, failing which to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
4. All the aggrieved Accused persons, including the Appellant herein, carried the matter by way of separate appeals before the High Court. By an elaborate judgment which is impugned herein, the High Court dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction and sentence awarded........