Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.59 of 2001 Against judgment andorder of conviction dated 18.12.2000 passed by Sri Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial No. 19/69 of 1998/98. =========================================================== Brahamdeo Prasad son of Late Bano Mahto, resident of Village Kabla, PS Pakaribarawan, District Nawadah .... .... Appellant Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr Durgesh Nandan, Advocate Mrs. Kiran Sinha, Advocate Ms. Manisha Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Abha Singh, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-12-2012 S.A.Khan, J. The appellant has been found guilty by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial No. 19/69 of 98/98 for the offences under [STATUTE] and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively. 2. The informant one Bhuneshwar Singh has lodged the Fardbeyan on 22.9.97 before the Officer-in-charge of Nawadah Police Station alleging the occurrence took place on 21.9.97 at 11 PM. It has been stated by the informant that when he was posted as S.I. in Nawadah where he was staying in room no.2 of Hotel Raj. In the adjacent room, a person who disclosed his identify as an army man posted at Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.59 of 2001 dt.14-12-2012 2 Pathankot tried to befriend him and began a conversation with him. The man disclosed his identify as a guest of the hotel and explained that he was on a visit to Nawadah for doing `pairvi’ in his case pending in the Nawadah Court for which he wanted to take the advice of the informant. He gave him a laddoo saying that he had gone to the temple of Sankatmochan and laddoos were offered by way of `prasad’. The informant took the `prasad’ given by the appellant, ate it, and after some time he felt giddiness and went off to sleep. In the morning he found that his service revolver and a sum of Rs.2000/- were missing from his room. He informed the hotel manager who subsequently informed the police. He was then taken to hospital and treated. Apart from the informant, two other persons, i.e. two employees of the hotel were also offered laddoos and they too went off to sleep. One of them, namely, Raj Kumar, had the key to the entrance of the hotel. 3. It may be kept in mind that further statement of the informant as well as the other persons who ate the laddoo is that they were taken to the doctor on the same day i.e. 22.9.97. 4. During investigation, the police came to the hotel and seized sample of the laddoos thrown on the balcony of the room occupied by the appellant. Laddoos were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for examination and the forensic report indicates that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.59 of 2001 dt.14-12-2012 3 `oxazopam` was found in the laddoos which is normally used for sedative purposes. 5. In this case 17 witnesses have been examined. This Court would first deal with the seizure list witnesses. P.W.7, P.W.13 and P.W.14 are the independent witnesses who were present at the time of seizure of the revolver which was recovered from the house of the appellant. All the three witnesses accept that they had signed on the seizure list. However, they have denied that they were present at the time when seizure was made. All these three witnesses have been declared hostile. Apart from the independent witnesses, P.W. 12, P.W 13, P.W.14 and P.W.15 are witnesses who were present at the time when seizure was made. All these are police constables and the I.O. of the case. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the court should reject the seizure list as it is not supported by the independent witnesses who have claimed that they were not present at the time when the seizure was made and as such the seizure is completely false. I find it would be difficult for this Court to completely discard the fact that a revolver was seized from the house of the appellant in view of the fact that there is no material brought on record either by way of defence or by way of suggestion during the trial which would indicate that the informant or the police witnesses Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.59 of 2001 dt.14-12-2012 4 had any bias or were interested in implicating the appellant. This Court has, therefore, to accept that there was a recovery from the house of the appellant although recovery was only partly proved by the police constables who were also witnesses to the seizure. 7. Keeping this fact in mind this Court will now examine the offence so far as it relates to [STATUTE] . The doctor has been examined as P.W.3. This Court finds that the doctor’s report is exaggerated. It is the prosecution case that the informant got up in the morning to find his revolver and money missing. He then immediately informed the hotel manager regarding the missing revolver as well as the missing money. In contrast to the oral statement given by the informant, the doctor has stated that the informant was in a semi-conscious state, pupils were dilated, his body was warm, pulse rate was 80 and the condition of the informant and the two other persons whom he examined was serious. In fact, the doctor has gone to the extent to say the condition of the informant and others was dangerous to life. It would appear that the doctor has stated that the informant and the two others were administered some poisonous substance. There is no ground for holding that the substance administered was poisonous as the `substance’ was not examined by this doctor and he is not a forensic expert. On the other hand, the forensic test indicates that some sleeping drug was Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.59 of 2001 dt.14-12-2012 5 administered to these three

Applicable IPC Section: 411

Statute Text:
Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.