Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.131 of 1999 Against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.5.1999, passed by Shri Nageshwar Prasad, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Araria, in Sessions Trial No. 263/95. =========================================================== 1. Sitaram Mochi son of late Babulal Ram 2. Nandu Ram 3. Jagjeewan Ram 4. Rajan Ram - sons of Sitaram Mochi 5. Bharat Sah son of late Rama Nand Sah - All sl. no.1 to 5 are residents of Patel Chowk, Forbisganj, Ward No. 16, PS Forbisganj, Distt. Araria 6. Babloo Choudhary son of Bhikhan Choudhary, resident of Forbisganj, Ward No.1, PS Forbisganj, District Araria 7. Bachchu alias Jai Prakash Kurian son of late Rameshwar Kurian, resident of village Kothi hat, PS Forbisganj, District Araria Accused.... .... Appellants Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manohar Manuj, Advocate Mr. Kapildeo Singh For the State : Mrs. Abha Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-11-2012 S.A.Khan, J. There are seven appellants before this Court. Counsel for the appellants produces the death certificate of Sitaram Mochi wherein it has been mentioned that the appellant Sitaram Mochi died on 2.8.2009. The counsel, however, is not in a position to state this fact on affidavit. Let the death certificate remain on the record. This Court finds it quite plausible that Sitaram Mochi would probably be dead taking into consideration that he was 75 years of age on the date Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.131 of 1999 dt.05-11-2012 2 when the judgment was delivered. The Trial Court may ascertain this fact and if it is found that Sitaram Mochi is dead, the appeal will abate against him or else he would be covered by the judgment in this case. 2. Out of seven appellants in this case, apparently Bachchu @ Jai Prakash Kurain had filed Cr. Appeal No. 157 of 1999 as well. The judgment passed in Cr. Appeal No. 157 of 1999 is before this Court which indicates that Bachchu @ Jai Prakash Kurain has been acquitted by this Court vide judgment delivered in Cr. Appeal No. 128 of 1999 and analogous cases on 31.1.2012. Thus, this Court will not be considering the case of Bachchu @ Jai Prakash Kurain. 3. The prosecution case is that a number of dacoits entered the house of the informant, P.W.3 Ratan Lal Agrawal, when he was sitting in his `Gaddi’ in front of his house. Some other employees were also sitting with the informant whereas his family members were inside the house. The said dacoits looted away cash as well as silver and gold ornaments from the house of the informant and the house of his uncle, P.W.18. The dacoits were chased and two persons were apprehended carrying the looted articles namely Manoj and Johny @ Aftab Alam. On the basis of the confessional statement of the aforesaid two accused persons, the house of the appellants was searched and recovery of cash and ornaments was made from their houses. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.131 of 1999 dt.05-11-2012 3 4. It is alleged that from the joint possession of the house of Nandu Ram, Jag Jeevan Ram, Rajan Ram and Sita Ram, about 17 ornaments were recovered. P.W.5 and P.W.6 have signed on the recovery i.e. the seizure list. It is further alleged that cash and ornaments were recovered from the house of Babloo Choudhary. The informant and Satya Narayan Agrawal have given details regarding the articles stolen from their houses as well as the list of ornaments which had been taken away by the accused persons. 5. During the trial, 19 witnesses were examined. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are witnesses with respect to seizure of the articles and ornaments from the house of the appellants. These two witnesses have been declared hostile. They have stated in their evidence before the court that seizure was not made in their presence, although they have not denied their signature on the seizure list. P.W.7 and P.W.15 are the witnesses on the point of occurrence and support the factum of dacoity. P.W.11 is the Sub- Inspector of Police who had chased some of the miscreants and was successful in arresting Manoj and Johny who are not appellants before the Court. P.W.12 is the Block Development Officer who has proved the test identification chart Ext.6. P.W.13 is A.S.I. in this case. P.W.16 and P.W.17 have supported the arrest of Manoj and Johny and recovery of articles from them. P.W. 18 is the uncle of the informant Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.131 of 1999 dt.05-11-2012 4 whereas P.W.3 is the informant himself. The I.O. has been examined as P.W.9. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the witnesses have not identified any of the appellants as there was no T.I. Parade held after the arrest of the appellants. The witnesses have also failed to identify the appellants in court and as such no case is made out under [STATUTE] . The submission regarding the offence under [STATUTE] . is that once the prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile and did not support the seizure of the articles from the house/possession of the appellants, the case under [STATUTE] , would also fail. In this context the Court will now consider the evidence of P.W.3 the informant and his uncle P.W.18. Ratan Lal Agrawal has supported the prosecution case as made out by him in the F.I.R. Regarding the recovery of identification of the seized articles it may be mentioned that all the articles has been marked as Exhibit which were produced in court in a sealed box. From the evidence of P.W.3 at paragraph-8 onwards he has been able to point out how he had come to identify the articles/ornaments at the time of T.I. Parade. For example, he has stated that he was able to identify silver bowl (katori) because M.

Applicable IPC Section: 161

Statute Text:
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Being or expecting to be a public servant, and taking A gratification other than Legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988