Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.12 OF 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION 22ND DECEMBER, 2000 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 23RD DECEMBER, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI BALMIKI PRASAD SINHA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE VI, AURANGABAD IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 30 OF 1999 ARISING OUT OF BAROON POLICE STTION CASE NO. 198 OF 1998 =========================================================== RAM MILAN SINGH, SON OF ALTE SOMAI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANAL ROAD, DEHRI, DISTRICT ROHTAS .... .... Appellant/s VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... Respondent/s WITH Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 13 of 2000 =========================================================== RAM JANAM PAL, SON OF DEONANDAN PAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHTHA, POLICE STATION BARUN, DISTRICT AURANGABAD .... .... Appellant/s VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 12 of 2000) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathy, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Mr. B. P. Singh, A.P.P. (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 13 of 2000) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Advocate Ms. Meena Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. B. P. Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-07-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22nd December, 1999 and the order of sentence dated 23rd December, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.12 of 2000 dt.13-07-2012 2 / 7 2 No. 30 of 1999. 2. Initially, in this case, 11 persons were made accused out of which all except these two appellants have been acquitted. These two appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 3. The prosecution case is that in the night between 28th and 29th of September, 1998, Bhonu Pal, the driver of truck bearing registration no. UP 65H-0597 was apprehended by some unknown criminals. The truck was carrying 169 bags of flour. The driver, the assistant driver and the khalashi (conductor) of the truck were tied up. Their eyes were also tied up by a piece of cloth. The truck was taken to some remote place and thereafter, these three persons were asked to wait for miscreants till they returned. After some time, they were successful in untying themselves and thereafter they went in search of Police Station to report the matter. 4. After lodging the First Information Report, Ram Janam Pal was arrested and the truck and flour bags were seized on the same day i.e. 29th September, 1998. The truck and flour bags were recovered from the line hotel of Ram Janam Pal. It is on the basis of the said seizure that the arrest was also made. 5. In this case, altogether ten witnesses have been Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.12 of 2000 dt.13-07-2012 3 / 7 3 examined on behalf of the prosecution. PWs 1, 2 and 3 are relevant for the purposes of proving the manner of occurrence which cannot be doubted in view of the statements given by them in their examination-in-chief. However, PWs 1 and 2 have not identified the appellants during the Test Identification Parade. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Ram Janam Pal has argued that only Kallu Yadav had identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade, but his identification is also doubtful in view of the cross-examination regarding this aspect of the matter. PW 3 Kallu Yadav has stated in his cross-examination that he had identified Ram Janam Pal at the time of Test Identification Parade. He further goes on to say that the man present in the dock is not the person he had identified in the Test Identification Parade. The Trial Court had perhaps rightly held that since PW 3 admits his identification in the Test Identification Parade and admits his signature on the chart of Test Identification Parade, the fact that he denied the presence of person whom he had identified in the Test Identification Parade, may be just a lapse of the memory, as it may not be possible to remember a face seen once in a lifetime again after one year. However, the Trial Court cannot base its findings on conjectures. Keeping in view the consistent judgments of both, this Court and the Supreme Court, regarding reliance being Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.12 of 2000 dt.13-07-2012 4 / 7 4 placed on a single identification, I am unable to convict the appellant Ram Janam Pal only on the basis of the single identification. 7. The next issue is the seizure. PWs 4 and 5 are witnesses to the seizure of the truck, PWs 6 and 7 are the witnesses to the seizure of flour bags and PW 10 is the witness to the seizure of receipts (bilty) seized from the house of the appellant Ram Milan Singh. The witnesses have identified their signatures but have stated in their cross-examination that they had signed on blank papers and the seizure was not made in their presence, and thus, have virtually denied being witnesses to the actual seizure. 8. PW 9 Sacchidanand Singh has prepared the chart regarding the Test Identification Parade. 9. The entire judgment has been passed on the basis of the deposition of the Investigating Officer Mahfooz Alam who has been examined as PW 8. PW 8 has stated that the fardbayan was taken down on his orders by Sub Inspector of Police Ramanuj Singh which has been marked as Exhibit-3 and the formal First Information Report has been marked as Exhibit-4. After taking down the fardbayan, this witness went towards the Sone River where the truck had been apprehended by the miscreants and followed the route through the forest to come to the G.T. Road, where there were several line hotels. It is sai

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.