Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.360 of 2008 ====================================================== Chhedi Sardar son of late Rup Lal Sardar, resident of Kelhuya, P.S. Shankarpur, Distt.-Madhepura .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Rai Bahadur Yadav, son of Jitendra Yadav 3. Binod Yadav, son of late Laxmi Yadav 4. Jitendra Yadav, son of late Tanuk Lal Yadav 5. Sanjay Yadav, son of Hari Nandan Yadav 6. Feku Yadav @ Ashok Yadav son of Raghu Yadav All are residents of vill. Shankarpur Nawtol, P.S.-Shan- Karpur, Distt.-Madhepura. .... .... Opp. Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 09-08-2012 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner, the informant of the criminal case, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.1.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.190 of 2006/Tr. No.99 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.V, Madhepura, acquitting accused opposite party No. 2 to 6 for the charge under [STATUTE] , has preferred this revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Patna High Court CR. REV. No.360 of 2008 (4) dt.09-08-2012 2 / 3 2 Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr. P.C.) assailing the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment of acquittal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an occurrence of dacoity took place in the night of 3.2.2004 and during the course of dacoity one person was killed. He contended that though accused opposite party no.2 to 6 were not named in the F.I.R.( Ext.4), and were not put on T.I.P., after they were apprehended by the police, but the informant and some other witnesses subsequently during the course of trial have named them and claimed to have identified them. Therefore, according to the learned counsel they ought to have been convicted for the crime in question. Learned trial court, after carefully appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution has accepted the factum of dacoity with murder to be correct, but by giving benefits of doubts has acquitted accused opposite party no.2 to 6. Admittedly, the accused persons were not named in the F.I.R.(Ext.4). During the course of investigation accused opposite parties were apprehended by police, but admittedly they were never put on T.I.P. Learned trial court has held the informant(P.W.7) to be not a reliable witness on the ground that in the F.I.R. he did not disclose the name of any of the accused Patna High Court CR. REV. No.360 of 2008 (4) dt.09-08-2012 3 / 3 3 persons, but after long lapse of time he disclosed the name of miscreants. Learned trial court has recorded a finding of fact that the informant has subsequently tried to develop and embellish the prosecution case only with a view to falsely implicate the accused opposite party No. 2 to 6 and, therefore , has given them benefits of doubts, and consequently acquitted them. In the facts and circumstances set forth above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional powers for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal. In the result, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. sudip/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, 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.