Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.747 of 2012 (3) dt.03-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.747 of 2012 ====================================================== Sabir Alam son of late Aziz Ahmad, R/o village- Logua, P.S.- Abadpur, District- Katihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mukhtar Alam @ Jaliha, Son of not known 3. Sahabat,son of not known 4. Mansoor Alam son of Kalad @ Kakim, r/o village- Lagua, P.s.- Abadpur, District- Katihar 5. Kaltu @ Kalimuddin so of Ful Mohammad @ Govind r/o village- Lagua, P.s.- Abadpur, District- Katihar 6. Sk. Anwar Son of Sk. Darvesh @ Nunua, R/o village- Pema Malikpur, P.s.- Harischandpur, District- Malda (West Bengal) 7. Bouga @ Sahid Alam Son of Late Bhola Baux r/o village- Lagua, P.s.- Abadpur, District- Katihar 8. Sk. Rabbul son of Haro @ Nasimuddian, R/o village- Pema Malikpur, P.s.- Harischandpur, District- Malda (West Bengal) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Jaipuriyar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 3 03-08-2012 The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.4.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Katihar whereby the respondent nos. 2 to 8 were acquitted from the charge under [STATUTE] . The learned trial court has discussed the evidence in the judgment brought on the record and came to the opinion that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.747 of 2012 (3) dt.03-08-2012 the evidence of identification has come for the first time before the Court, so on that basis order of conviction was not thought proper. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the informant was not at fault. If no test identification parade was conducted, then the Investigating Officer was at fault. The appellant has challenged the order of acquittal. Order of acquittal can only be interfered with if that is perverse, illegal or beyond the record. The evidences brought on the record was that the accused persons were not put on test identification parade and for the first time some of them were identified in the Court. In absence of corroboration under section 161 Cr.P.C. evidence of the witnesses, no order of conviction could have been passed and that is why no such order has been passed. In view of the above facts, this appeal is held to be of without merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. avin/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 396

Statute Text:
Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder in Dacoity. If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.