Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1096 of 2012 (3) dt.30-11-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1096 of 2012 ====================================================== Amita Kumari wife of Sri Rahul Kumar, resident of village Sirsa, P.S.Mufassil, District East Champaran (Motihari) .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Laddu Singh @ Vijay Kumar Singh son of Birendra Singh, resident of village Sirsa, P.S.Mufassi, District East Champaran (Motihari) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : M/s Farooque Ahmad Khan & Md.Sufiyan, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) ------------ 3 30-11-2012 The appellant has challenged judgment dated 28.08.2012 passed by Sri Vijay Kant Mishra, 7th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 533 of 2009/212 of 2009 whereby respondent no.2 has been acquitted of the charges under [STATUTE] and 25(1-B) of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there were enough evidences to link the appellant with the offence but the trial court has not properly appreciated the same and has acquittal the accused of the charges. In course of dacoity, the accused looted ornaments and other articles from the house of the informant and also from the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1096 of 2012 (3) dt.30-11-2012 house of Prema Kumari and they assaulted the inmates. The motive of the occurrence was that the informant was having animosity with the accused and Title Suit No. 367 of 2008 is pending between them. The trial court after considering the evidences found certain doubts. One of the doubts was that there was allegation of assault but neither any injury report was filed nor any doctor to that effect was examined. Even the informant has not mentioned the name of the injured who sustained injury during dacoity. For proving the charge, the prosecution is required to establish the charges beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and even if one doubt remains to be created which could have been proved, then the trial court has to give benefit of doubt. Neither the injury report was produced nor any doctor has been examined to support. Considering all these, we are of the view that the trial court has committed nothing wrong in acquitting the accused of the charges. Thus, the appeal is held to be without merit and is dismissed. Tahir/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 395

Statute Text:
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.