Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.153 of 2000 =========================================================== AGAISNT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 2.5.2000, PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE-II, ARARIA, IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 161 OF 1987. =========================================================== 1. Taiful @ Taiful Khan, Son of Dhaneshwar Khan. 2. Razi Khan @ Razzi Khan, Son of Kamruddin Khan. 3. Surfan Khan @ Sorfan Khan, Son of Sitar Khan. All of Village Bansar, P.S. Palasi, District Araria. .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 166 of 2000 =========================================================== 1. Ziabul, Son of Hamidur Rahaman, Resident of Village Gopal Nagar, P.S. Palasi, District Araria. 2. Sk. Muddi, Son of Jarmuddin, Resident of Village Dehti, P.S. Palasi, District Araria. .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 153 of 2000) For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Diwakar Sinha, Advocate (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 166 of 2000) For the Appellants : Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, Advocate Mr. A.K. Saxena, Advocate For the State : Ms. Abha Singh, A.P.P. (In both the appeals) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-10-2012 S.A. Khan, J. There are five appellants before this Court in these two appeals. They have been found guilty under [STATUTE] by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Araria Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.153 of 2000 dt.01-10-2012 2 / 4 2 in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1987 and have been convicted to undergo R.I. for 10 years. 2. The facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 14/15 June, 1982, the informant Soyeb Alam was sleeping in his tea shop along with his two brothers P.Ws. 1 and 2, when some miscreants dressed in police uniform came to his shop and broke open the door. They looted away articles such as, torch, loudspeaker, music cassettes, clothes, leather bag and cash. The informant has named all the five appellants in the First Information Report as the persons who had committed the said dacoity. 3. During trial, three witnesses i.e. the informant and his two brothers have been examined whereas, P.W. 4 has proved the formal writing of the Fardbeyan. 4. P.W. 1, Nizam has supported the case that some miscreants had entered the tea shop of his brother while they were sleeping and looted away articles. He claims to have been identified Ziabul and Sk. Muddi, appellants of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 166 of 2000 in the torch light. In his cross-examination, this witness states that he identified the two appellants on being forced to do so by Salauddin, P.W. 2. P.W. 2 Md. Salauddin supports the case of dacoity and claims to have identified one Issa Khan Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.153 of 2000 dt.01-10-2012 3 / 4 3 who is not an appellant before this Court. He claims that he does not remember to have identified Muddi, Taiful Khan and Surfan Khan. He does not identify any of the appellants who were standing in the dock. He further claims that it was dark night and since the appellants had stolen his torch, he could not identify them. P.W. 3, Md. Soyeb is the informant of this case. He supports the factum of dacoity. He claims that he identified the appellants of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 166 of 2000. However, he has not identified them in Court. In his cross-examination he says that it was a guess work on his part that these appellants were the persons who were responsible for the occurrence (). 5. On perusal of the evidence aforesaid regarding the involvement of these appellants and the occurrence under [STATUTE] , it would appear that all three witnesses have given a complete turn around to the case with respect to identification as all three of them have stated that they have not identified the appellants, or that they cannot identify them in Court or that they had named them on the basis of guess work. 6. This being the position, this Court cannot hold that these appellants were responsible for committing dacoity in the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.153 of 2000 dt.01-10-2012 4 / 4 4 shop of the informant Soyed Alam. The appellants are accordingly, acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are also discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds furnished earlier in these cases. 7. These appeals are allowed. Sanjay/- (Sheema Ali Khan, 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.