Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.161 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 185 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 215 OF 2007 ======================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION 21ST DECEMBER, 2006 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 22ND DECEMBER, 2006 PASSED BY SHRI HIMANSHU SHEKHAR PANDEY, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT NO. III, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 242 OF 1999/67 OF 2002 ARISING OUT OF BHABHUA POLICE STATION CASE NO. 70 OF 1999 ======================================================== 1. BAGEDAN BIND, SON OF SAHAL BIND 2. HARIHAR BIND @ HARIDWAR BIND, SON OF SAHAL BIND BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SITAMPURA), POLICE STATION SONHAN, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABHUA) 3. RAGHUNATH BIND, SON OF SUKHU BIND 4. LALAN BIND, SON OF SURESH BIND 3 AND 4 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SADE KAWAEE, POLICE STATION SONHAN, DISTRICT KAIMUR .... .... APPELLANTS (IN CR. APP. 161/2007) WITH DEVRAJ BIND, SON OF LATE KEDAR BIND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAHAPUR, POLICE STATION BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT KAIMUR .... .... APPELLANT (IN CR. APP. 185/2007) WITH BALIA BIND @ BALI BIND, SON OF TILKU BIND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SITAMPURA (BHIKHAMPURA), POLICE STATION SONHAN, DISTRICT KAIMUR AT BHABHUA .... .... APPELLANT (IN CR. APP. 215/2007) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ... .... RESPONDENT (IN ALL APPEALS) =========================================================== APPEARANCE : (IN CR. APP (SJ) NOS. 161 AND 185 OF 2007) FOR THE APPELLANTS : MR. OM PRAKASH PANDEY, ADV. MR. TRIBHUWAN NARAYAN, ADV. MR. UDAY PRATAP SINGH, ADV. (IN CR. APP (SJ) NO. 215 OF 2007) FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA NO. 2, ADV. (IN ALL APPEALS) FOR THE S T A T E : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. FOR THE INFORMANT : MR. VINOD KUMAR SETH, ADVOCATE =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-09-2012 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.161 of 2007 dt.03-09-2012 2 / 15 2 Sheema Ali Khan, J. Above noted three appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These three appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 21st December, 2006 and the order of sentence dated 22nd December, 2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1999/67 of 2002 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Kaimur at Bhabhua has found and held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Appellant Balia Bind has further been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under [STATUTE] . The appellants Balia Bind and Raghunath Bind have been further convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Raghunath Bind, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2007 submits that he has died during the pendency of this appeal. No affidavit has been filed in Court in this matter. It would, thus, require that the trail court should verify this fact. If it is found that Raghunath Bind, son of Sukhu Bind, resident of village Sade Kawaee, P.S. Sonhan, District, Kaimur has died the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.161 of 2007 dt.03-09-2012 3 / 15 3 judgment against Raghunath Bind, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2007 shall stand abated. 4. Kailash Bind, informant of this case gave his fardbeyan at Sadar Hospital, Bhabhua on 23.03.1999 at about 7.30 A.M. In the First Information Report it is said that he was sleeping along with his wife and son when some persons began to beat the door and finally broke the door and entered into their house. They were 6 to 8 in number. The informant is said to have identified the six appellants as well as one Tilaku Bind. It is alleged that these persons began to commit loot and took away clothes, silver and Rs. 5,000/- cash. Tilaku Bind is said to have fired with his gun on the informant whereas Balia Bind said to have fired on the wife of the informant P.W.5. Both of them received serious injuries on the hand and on the fist by the said firing. 5. The genesis of the occurrence according to the informant is land dispute. Initially the case was recorded under [STATUTE] . Subsequently during investigation chargesheet was submitted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 326 307/34 of the Indian penal Code. After P.W.1, Yamuna Bind was examined on 17.06.2002, the charges were altered and framed under [STATUTE] . Thus, the case of the prosecution is that the named accused persons along with some others had committed the dacoity in their house and while committing dacoity had fired on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.161 of 2007 dt.03-09-2012 4 / 15 4 the informant and his wife because of which they received grievous injuries. Unfortunately the doctor and the Investigating Officer have not been examined in this case. 6. Thirteen witnesses have been examined in this case. P.Ws.2, 6, 7 and 11 are hearsay witnesses who do not disclose the name of the accused persons. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 10 are formal witnesses who have proved the formal First Information Report and the seizure list, whereas, P.Ws. 8 and 13 have proved the injury report. Four witnesses claim to be eye witnesses to the occurrence i.e. P.Ws. 1, 5, 9 and 2. 7. It may be noted that the witnesses who claim to have identified the appellants were injured during the course of the occurrence, and have given up the case made out in the First Information Report regarding the genesis of the occurrence. In fact all the four witnesses do not disclose the fact that the appellants and the informant are closely related to each other. It is only in the cross-examination, that these facts were

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.