Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.219 of 1990 =========================================================== Guru Prasad Singh, son of Sunder Singh, resident of village Nawadah, P.S. Saraipur, District Allahabad (U.P.) .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Onkar Nath, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shiwesh Ch. Mishra, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA) Date: 25-09-2012 This appeal has been filed by the sole appellant Guru Prasad Singh, who has been convicted under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment dated 19.4.1990 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in S.Tr.No. 271 of 1982 arising out of Semra P.S.Case No. 2/1982. 2. The prosecution case as may be culled out from the version of the informant Ram Chandra Yadav (P.W.8) in nut shell is that in the night of 19/20th July, 1982 a dacoity was committed in the house of his father Panchu Yadav (P.W.7) and in course of such dacoity while Panchu Yadav was severely assaulted, his son Bishwanath Yadav was also done to death by the miscreants. Though Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.219 of 1990 dt.25-09-2012 2 none has been named in the fardbeyan of the informant as the members of the dacoits but it has been claimed that the dacoits themselves were flashing torch light and had also put fire in the straw stored in the house of Panchu Yadav and as such, the dacoits who were given their description by physical feature could be identified. It is also claimed by the informant that the gang of dacoits consisting of 15-16 persons, having committed the dacoity and also killing Bishwanath Yadav and injuring Panchu Yadav in course of such dacoity had fled away from the occurrence after arrival of the villagers whereafter when the aforesaid Bishwanath Yadav in an injured condition was being removed to the hospital, he had succumbed to his injuries in the way. 3. Thus, this First Information Report lodged under [STATUTE] . against unknown persons on the version of the informant had led to institution of Semra P.S.Case No. 2/1982 and the police in course of investigation having taken aid of adjacent police station in Khadda Police Station, in the State of U.P., had collected proof as with regard to involvement of the appellant and four others, namely, Ramdhani Yadav, Ranjan Kumar Gupta, Mahendra Nath Pandey and Ramakant Kewat (since dead) and having found sufficient materials as with regard to their involvement in the occurrence in question had filed charge sheet on the basis of Test Identification Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.219 of 1990 dt.25-09-2012 3 Parade (in short T.I.P.) conducted on 20.10.1982. All of them were subsequently put on trial and by the impugned judgment while remaining co-accused, namely, Ramdhani Yadav, Ranjan Kumar Gupta and Mahendra Nath Pandey have been acquitted on the ground of disbelieving their identification in the T.I.P., the sole appellant has been convicted on an additional ground of recovery of his gun licence. 4. Assailing the impugned judgment Mr. Onkar Nath, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae, has submitted that once the trial court had disbelieved identification of the co-accused on the basis of tainted T.I.P., there was no reason for the appellant to have not been given the same benefit. In this regard he has also criticized the impugned judgment by taking a specific plea that mere recovery of gun licence of the appellant cannot be used as a circumstance for also holding that the appellant was one of the members of dacoit which had committed the occurrence in question. He has also in this regard submitted that when the Investigating Officer himself did not recover the gun licence, the reliance placed by him on the version of P.W.4 Rudal Yadav and P.W.5 Sarwan Mahto as with regard to alleged recovery of gun licence by them would not inspire confidence, especially when they have failed to explain the actual place of recovery of such gun licence. He has also highlighted that the crucial documentary evidence Ext.10 though being a carbon copy and yet Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.219 of 1990 dt.25-09-2012 4 having the original thumb impression of P.Ws. 4 and 5 and the signature of P.W.2 and P.W.6 would create a grave doubt as with regard to genuineness of not only the document in question but the whole story of production of gun licence in the manner indicated by the prosecution. He has also additionally submitted that there are several other conflicting circumstances in the prosecution case which having been not explained by the prosecution, its resultant benefit had to be given to the appellant whose conviction by the trial court has been recorded merely on the basis of sole circumstances i.e. the recovery of his gun licence. 5. Per contra, Mr. Shiwesh Ch. Mishra, learned A.P.P. while defending the impugned judgment and the findings recorded therein has submitted that true it is that the identification of the appellant and other co-accused on account of previous publication of their photographs in a newspaper at the instance of the Officer In- charge of Khadda Police Station has become doubtful but then the fact that soonafter the occurrence and in fact well in course of recording of the fardbeyan the gun licence of the appellant had been recovered and produced before the Investigating Officer that by itself would be a fitting circumstance to connect the appellant in the said occurrence. He has also submitted that once the Investigating Officer, examined as a court witness no.1, Mehndi Abbas, had made it clear in his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.219 of 1990

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.