Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.361 OF 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2000 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI UDAY KANT THAKUR, 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUBANI IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 20 OF 1988 ARISING OUT OF LAUKAHA POLICE STATION CASE NO. 27 OF 1987 =========================================================== 1. LAXMAN TELI @ LAXMAN SAH, SON OF LATE MUNESHWAR SAH 2. NEBALAL MAHTO, SON OF LATE KAPLESHWAR MAHTO BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HINGWA, POLICE STATION LAUKAHA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. SHAILENDRA KR. JHA, A.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT/S : MR. PARMESHWAR MEHTA, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-10-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the appellants. 2. The appellant has been found guilty and convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under [STATUTE] by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1988. 3. The prosecution case as per the version of the informant Dhanilal Yadav is that he was sleeping in the night when he heard some persons trying to break the doors. Finally, 2-3 dacoits succeeded in breaking the door and entered into the house of the informant. All of them had covered their faces. One Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.361 of 2000 dt.05-10-2012 2 / 4 2 of the dacoits asked him for money etc. A scuffle took place between the informant and one of the miscreants. The informant escaped into his courtyard where he found 2-3 other dacoits. One of the dacoits began to assault him. His mother intervened but she too was assaulted. The dacoits escaped with the household items, ornaments, money etc. The informant claims that he was able to identify the person with whom he had scuffle as Laxman Teli. He also claims to have identified the brother-in-law of Khusilal, the Sarpanch amongst the miscreants. After committing dacoity, one of the miscreants gave the order, as a result of which one of the dacoits fired which injured the informant. On alarm being raised, the villagers came to the place of occurrence and chased the dacoits. 4. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses in support of its case, out of which PW 1 Dobhi Yadav, PW 2 Jagat Mandal, co-villager and PW 8 Jasomati Devi, wife of the informant have been declared hostile as they have stated that they could not identify any of the dacoits. 5. The informant Dhanilal Yadav was examined as PW 3. He claims that he could identify two of the appellants as they are from the same village. He denies that there is any enmity between the parties. He claims to have identified them in the torch light, although no such statement has been given by the informant in the First Information Report. It also appears strange that having said that all the dacoits had covered their Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.361 of 2000 dt.05-10-2012 3 / 4 3 faces, this witness had identified two appellants without their being any source of identification. This Court, therefore, concludes that the identification of the appellants seems to be an afterthought of the informant. 6. PW 4 Ram Janam Prasad Sahu, the doctor, has supported the injuries on the informant and his mother. 7. PW 5 Ram Swaroop Mandal is a hearsay witness and states that he was told about the participation of these two appellants. 8. PW 6 Indradeo Ram, a hearsay witness, disclosed the name of one of the appellants i.e. Laxman Teli, which was disclosed to him by the mother of Dhanilal Yadav. He is the co-villager and when he went to the place of occurrence, he found that the informant had fainted. 9. PW 7 Gangia Devi is the mother, who identified one of the miscreants i.e. Newa Lal Mahto. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the appellants have been convicted. This Court doubts the evidence of PWs 3 and 7 as neither of these witnesses disclosed the source of identification by which they could identify the appellants and that it is also a fact that the informant had admitted that all the miscreants had covered their faces. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants had a criminal antecedent and although the suggestion of enmity is denied, but the involvement of co-villagers has to be viewed with utmost care Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.361 of 2000 dt.05-10-2012 4 / 4 4 before the Court could have convict them for the offences under [STATUTE] . Thus, the evidence aforesaid does not inspire confidence of this Court and as such, the appellants are acquitted of the charge of [STATUTE] levelled against them. They are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Prabhakar Anand/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)

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.