Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.288 of 1998 dt.29-06-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.288 of 1998 =========================================================== 1. Ramadhar Singh @ Ramadhar Ahir 2. Nathuni Singh @ Nathuni Ahir 3. Durga Prasad Singh @ Durga Prasad Ahir & 4. Harihar Singh @ Harihar Ahir .... .... Appellants Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Imran, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-06-2012 Heard Mr. Imran, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the State. 2. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.07.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No.136 of 1984 by the learned Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Sasaram at Rohtas by which the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under [STATUTE] . 3. The prosecution is based on the fardbeyan of P.W.9 Mishri Ram, which was recorded on 05.12.1983 at 10.30 A.M. at Baghela police, station by one Ayodhya Prasad Singh, a Sub- Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.288 of 1998 dt.29-06-2012 Inspector of Police, regarding an occurrence which is said to have taken place on 04.12.1983 at 11.30 A.M. 4. In the fardbeyan, the informant has alleged, inter- alia, that on the relevant date and time of occurrence 10-12 miscreants entered into the courtyard of the informant after scaling over the roof and opened the door from inside. The informant, at the relevant time was sleeping at the roof of Jananikita (a portion of the house meant for female members of the family). At that time his son Rajendra Ram was sleeping in a room of Jananikita. The miscreants started knocking the door of the room in which informant’s son Rajendra Ram was sleeping. The informant claims to have identified the appellants in the torchlight. He alleges that appellant no.1 Ramadhar Singh @ Ramadhar Ahir was armed with garasa, whereas, appellant no.2 Nathuni Singh @ Nathuni Ahir and appellant no.3 Durga Prasad Singh @ Durga Prasad Ahir were armed with pistol and appellant no.4 Harihar Singh @ Harihar Ahir was armed with gun. The informant started shouting, on which, co-villagers Shivpujan Chamar, Ramjanam Ram, Sripati Ram and others came. They started pelting ‘khapra’ (roof tiles) on the miscreants. The informant alleges that the appellant no.1, Ramadhar Singh @ Ramadhar Ahir, was threatening his son to open the door of the room. They wanted to kill the informant and his son. As per informant, the miscreants stayed in the courtyard of his house for about one hour. They resorted to 10-12 rounds of firing. However, when the villagers assembled they fled away. The informant has further alleged that after the miscreants left Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.288 of 1998 dt.29-06-2012 the place he found that they had taken away utensils and other household articles worth Rs.400/- from his house. The motive attributed in the FIR for commission of the offence is that the informant was a witness against appellant no.4 in connection with a criminal case lodged earlier. The informant was also a witness against appellant no.2 in connection with another criminal case lodged earlier. The informant has also stated that a Sanha was also lodged prior to the occurrence against some of the appellants. In sum and substance as alleged due to the enmity existing from before, the appellants committed the offence. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, a formal FIR being Baghela(Nokha) P.S.Case No.184 dated 05.12.1983, was registered under [STATUTE] against the appellants and investigation was taken up. 6. After completion of investigation, the police found the allegation made in the FIR to be true and submitted chargesheet under Sections 449 and 380 of the Indian Penal on 29.12.1983. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence and after complying with the formalities prescribed under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial on 16.04.1984. The trial court, thereafter, framed charge against the appellants under [STATUTE] on 25.04.1991 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.288 of 1998 dt.29-06-2012 altogether nine witnesses to prove its case. The defence of the appellants was of false implication due to admitted enmity existing from before between the parties. 8. In the present case P.W.1 Basant Ram, P.W.2 Ramjanam Ram, P.W.4 Santlal Ram and P.W.5 Shivpujan Ram are all hearsay witnesses. They all are co-villagers of the informant as well as the appellants. They claim that on shouting of the informant and his family members they came to the place of occurrence. They pelted bricks and ‘khapra’ on the miscreants. However, the miscreants resorted to firing and fled away. It is pertinent to note it here that the appellants are co-villagers of the informant and the witnesses. The witnesses claim that they reached at the place of occurrence on shouting of the informant and his family members and that that time the miscreants were already present inside the house. They left the place after their arrival, in their presence, but, they themselves could not identify any of the appellants. They in their deposition state that they came to know about participation of the appellants in the alleged offence from the informant after the miscreants left the place. 9. P.W.6 Rajendra Ram is son of the informant. In his deposition, he is consisten

Applicable IPC Section: 449

Statute Text:
Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code. House-trespass in order to the commission of an offence punishable with death. Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.