Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.828 of 2012 (2) dt.23-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.828 of 2012 ====================================================== Upendra Kumar Rai son of Ram Deo Rai, resident of Sunderpuri, P.S.Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Manoj Singh son of Kamta Singh 3. Naresh Rai son of Gudiri Rai Both are residents of Saidpur, P.S.Bakhtiyarpur,District Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr Tilak Sao, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) --------------- 2 23-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 21.04.2012 passed by Sri Mohan Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Barh in Sessions Trial No. 767 of 1998 relating to Bakhtiyarpur P.S.Case No. 199 of l997 whereby the accused persons (respondent nos. 2 and 3) have been acquitted of the charge under [STATUTE] . A dacoity was committed in the night of 28/29th December, 1997 while the informant and his family members were sleeping. The accused persons were put on trial and before the trial court the witnesses were examined. Though the witnesses named the accused persons during trial but the Investigating Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.828 of 2012 (2) dt.23-08-2012 Officer in his evidence has stated that the prosecution witnesses had given their statements without naming the accused persons before him. The evidence is that most of the accused persons were covering their faces. Even the accused persons were covering their faces. Considering the evidences, the trial court came to the conclusion that the identity of the accused persons was not proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and accordingly it acquitted the accused persons of the charge This court can interfere with the judgment of acquittal if it is either perverse or illegal. There is no such error in the impugned judgment. The judgment has been passed on sound reasoning and it requires no interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal is without merit and it is accordingly 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.