Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.68 of 2001 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 6.2.2001 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12.2.2001, PASSED IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 56/89, BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, VI, MUNGER. =========================================================== 1. Pana Yadav @ Pano Yadav. 2. Lal Bahadur Yadav. 3. Kailash Yadav. 4. Bijay Yadav. All sons of Late Ram Bhajju Yadav. 5. Kishun Yadav, Son of Late Madhu Yadav. All resident of Lal Darwaja Police Station Kotwali, District Munger. .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 121 of 2001 =========================================================== Kapildeo Yadav, Son of Bisundeo Yadav, Resident of Mohalla Lal Darwaja, P.S. Kotwali, District Munger. .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants in both the cases : Mr. Arvind Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State in both the cases : Ms. Abha Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-12-2012 S.A. Khan, J. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that Kapildeo Yadav, appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 121 of 2001 has died. It is submitted that he attended the last rites of Kapildeo Yadav. Learned counsel also submits that perhaps the other appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2001 dt.04-12-2012 2 / 7 2 of 2001 have also died be but cannot sure about this fact. This Court, therefore, directs the Trial Court to call for a report from the concerned Police Station/Investigating Officer and if the Court finds that the appellants have died, the appeal against the dead appellants shall abate or else they would be covered by the findings in this appeal. 2. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, VI, Munger dated 6.2.2012 by which appellants Pana Yadav @ Pano Yadav, Kishun Yadav, Kapildeo Yadav, Kailash Yadav and Lal Bahadur Yadav have been found guilty under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. They have further been found guilty for the offence under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month each. Appellant Pana Yadav @ Pano Yadav has further been found guilty for the offence under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. Appellant Bijay Yadav has been found guilty for the offence under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. He has further been found guilty for the offence under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2001 dt.04-12-2012 3 / 7 3 3. The prosecution case is that on 10.4.1988 about 6.45 in the morning the appellants came to the house of the informant and injured P.W. 1, Ghuteshwar Yadav. It is also alleged against Pana Yadav @ Pano Yadav that he removed wheat, cement bags and ornaments from the house whereas Bijay Yadav is said to have set fire to the house. 4. The defence case is that the present case is a counter version to the case filed by Jayabanti Devi, Wife of Kushun Yadav alleging therein that it was the informant and the persons who have been examined in this case who had set fire to her house in order to grab the land. Ext. A dated 4.6.1969 is a sale deed which indicates that the appellant Kishun Yadav had purchased 4 Kathas of land whereas P.W. 1 claims that he had purchased about 10 Dhurs of land which is the subject matter of dispute. The defence has further come out with a specific case that the land allegedly belonging to the informant party had been utilized for construction of a road and as such the informant and others had no right to be on the said land and as such the case made out by them that the appellants have set fire to the hut belonging to the informant is concocted, untrue and that no such occurrence took place. 5. Altogether five witnesses have been examined in this case. P.W. 1, Ghuteshwar Yadav claims that he had purchased 1 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2001 dt.04-12-2012 4 / 7 4 Katha of land sometime in the year 1986 or 1987 (The sale deed has not been produced). He has accepted that Kishun Yadav had purchased part of the land from the same plot. According to his case he was assaulted and accused persons specifically Bijay Yadav set his house ablaze. It has been argued that Ghuteshwar Yadav does not live in the same locality and, therefore, he had no occasion to be present at the place of occurrence. P.W. 1 denies that he had assaulted the wife of Kishun Yadav. 6. P.W. 3 is the informant of this case whereas P.W. 2 is his brother. Both these witnesses have supported the occurrence in the chief. During cross-examination it has come that these witnesses had no occasion to be present at the place of occurrence since they do not have their residential house in the Tola where the occurrence took place rather they are resident of different Mohalla. The witnesses tried to deny the fact by stating that he has ‘Phus Hut’ in the said Tola where he ties his animals and, therefore, he was able to witness the occurrence. This witness admits that Ghuteshwar Yadav lives in Chaman Tola in the district of Begusarai. He denies that they are interested witnesses by virtue of being related to P.W. 1. 7. P.W. 3 admits that Bhutto Yadav is a resident of Chaman tola which is in Khagaria district. According to the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2001 dt.04-12-2012 5 / 7 5 informant P.W. 1, Ghuteshwar Yadav had purchased only 10 Dhurs of lan

Applicable IPC Section: 380

Statute Text:
Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft in a building, tent or vessel. Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.