Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.386 OF 2000 ======================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2000 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI RAMJEE PANDEY, 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BHABUA IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 220 OF 1983/84 OF 1997 ARISING OUT OF BHABHUA POLICE STATION CASE NO. 70 OF 1983 ======================================================== 1. NIRMAL CHAMAR, SON OF LATE BALCHAND CHAMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAWANPUR, POLICE STATION BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT KAIMUR 2. SHEOMUNI CHAMAR @ LOHA, SON OF LATE SAROOP CHAMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARKAGAON, POLICE STATION BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT KAIMUR 3. NARESH SHARMA @ NARESH LOHAR, SON OF LATE RAM DAYAL SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALHIPUR, POLICE STATION CHENARI, DISTRICT ROHTAS 4. TUFANI PASWAN, SON OF LATE GANESH PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAWANPUR, POLICE STATION BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABUA) .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S ======================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. RAVI SHANKER SAHAY, ADV. MR. AJAY NANDAN SAHAY, ADV. FOR THE RESPONDENT/S : MS. ABHA SINGH, A.P.P. ======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 26-07-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25th September, 2000 and the order of sentence dated 26th September, 2000 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 1983/84 of 1997 whereby the Trial Court had found and held the appellants guilty Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.386 of 2000 dt.24-07-2012 2 / 7 2 for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. The prosecution case is that at about 11 PM on 09.04.1983, the informant (PW 1) was sleeping in his house. The father of the informant (PW 2) was sleeping in the Khalihan. The sister of the informant, informed the family members that some dacoits had entered the house. The father of the informant raised an alarm. The villagers came there and finally the dacoits ran away taking away with them four boxes containing ornaments, cloths and household articles. 3. Altogether, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the appellants and identification of the appellants. PW 6 Syed Zakir Haque Akhtar is the Investigating Officer of this case. PW 8 Banshlochan Singh was the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at the relevant time and he was deputed as the Judicial Magistrate to conduct the Test Identification Parade. PWs 3 and 5 are the formal witnesses who proved various documents in this case. PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5 have been examined on the point of occurrence and identification of the appellants. 4. This case is based on the identification Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.386 of 2000 dt.24-07-2012 3 / 7 3 of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses. In the First Information Report, it has been stated that the informant was able to see the faces of the dacoits who had entered in the house in the torch light. PW 1, Prabhu Narayan Tiwary, the informant, supports the prosecution case and claims that several household articles and ornaments as well as watches etc. were looted away by the dacoits who entered into the house. He explains that his sister came and informed him that dacoits have entered in their house. He had attended the Test Identification Parade and has identified Sheomuni Chamar @ Loha (appellant no. 2) and Tufani Dusadh @ Paswan (appellant no. 4). 5. PW 2 Basdeo Tiwary is the father of the informant. He was sleeping in the Baithka when the occurrence is said to have taken place. He has identified Nirmal Chamar (appellant no. 1) and Tufani Dusadh (appellant no. 4) in the Test Identification Parade. 6. PW 4 Kashi Nath Tiwary claims to have identified the dacoits while they were running away. He states that there were altogether 10-11 miscreants. He attended the Test Identification Parade and identified Tufani Dusadh. In his evidence, he also proves the seizure of the articles that were recovered from the house of the appellants. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.386 of 2000 dt.24-07-2012 4 / 7 4 7. PW 5 Shyam Narayan Tiwary is also the member of the family. He claims that he was sleeping in the Baithka situated near his house when he heard the alarm raised by his family members. He could see the dacoits in the light of the torch and claims that he would be able to identify them, if they were paraded before him. He supports the fact that several household articles were looted from his house. He attended the Test Identification Parade and was able to identify the appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4. His name has wrongly been recorded as Sheo Narayan Tiwary instead of Shaym Narayan Tiwary in Test Identification Parade chart. 8. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the source of identification i.e. the torch was not produced before the Investigating Officer and as such, the Court should discard the so-called identification as highly suspicious. Once, it has been asserted by the informant that he could identify or see the dacoits in the torch light, it is not essential that in each and every case, the torch should be produced to prove that such identification could be made. Each of the witnesses had a torch with them and, therefore, it is not expected that all of them will produce the torch in order to claim successfully that they had means to identify the dacoits, who had entered into their house. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.386 of 2000 dt.24-07-2012 5 / 7 5 Besides which, there was no reason for these witnesses to wrongly identify or to implicate the appellants in a criminal case. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to doubt the fact that the w

Applicable IPC Section: 395

Statute Text:
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.