Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.345 of 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENTOF CONVICTION DATED 31.8.2000 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 1.9.2000, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SUPAUL IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 71/96 ARISING OUT OF JADIYA P.S. CASE NO. 32/94. =========================================================== 1. Domi Mian, Son of Md. Seikh Bahadur. 2. Jamun Rishideo, Son of Late Gaina Rishideo. 3. Badri Ram, Son of Late Banilal Ram. 4. Bijal Mushar @ Bijal Risideo, Son of Late Lalhu Rishideo. 5. Nandi Sharma, Son of Late Banbari Sharma. 6. Mathar Sharma, Son of Nandi Sharma. 7. Bhajan Sharma, Son of Late Chhoti Sharma. All are residents of Village Jadiya, P.S. Jadiya, District Supaul. .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Arun, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K., Advocate For the State : Ms. Abha Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-09-2012 S.A. Khan, J. The seven appellants have been found guilty for an offence under [STATUTE] by the Additional Sessions Judge, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 71/96 arising out of Jadiya P.S. Case No. 32/94 and are convicted to undergo R.I. for 10 years. Appellant No. 7, Bhajan Sharma has further been convicted under [STATUTE] to undergo R.I. for 10 years. It was ordered that the sentence passed against Bhajan Sharma, appellant no. 7, shall run concurrently. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.345 of 2000 dt.05-09-2012 2 / 9 2 Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 have remained in custody for about 6 years in this case, appellant no. 5 has remained in custody for 4 months and 4 days, appellant no. 6 has remained in custody for about 3 years and 9 months, whereas, appellant no. 7 has remained in custody for about 2 years, 8 months. 2. The occurrence took place in the night between 8/9 of July, 1994. The First Information Report was recorded at 2.30 hours on 10.7.1994. Later [STATUTE] was added on 12.7.1994 and thereafter the trial began. The prosecution case made out in the First Information Report is that the son of Saini Sharma had returned from Punjab. He carried with him a draft of Rs. 5,000/- and other house hold articles. In the night when the informant and his family members were sleeping, they heard some sounds in their house and saw that seven appellants and few others had entered the house variously armed. It is alleged that Bhajan Sharma and Methar Sharma tied the informant with his ‘Lungi’, whereas, the other miscreants entered the house and took away all the valuable articles including the draft of Rs. 5,000/-. After committing dacoity in the house of the informant, the miscreants committed dacoity in the house of Ramji Sharma, P.W. 7 and Nunu Lal Sharma, P.W. 5 who happen to be brothers. It is asserted in the First Information Report that all the named accused Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.345 of 2000 dt.05-09-2012 3 / 9 3 persons are resident of the same village and infact some of them are the neighbours of the informant. 3. Nine witnesses were examined in this case. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are witnesses of the seizure list, whereas, the others claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. A defence has been raised on behalf of the appellants alleging therein that the appellants are well known to the informant being neighbours and having their lands in the same village, side by side, which has given rise to certain disputes with respect to the boundary of the agricultural land leading to the implication of the appellants in this case. Their names have been implicated due to land dispute. The fact that the dacoits were not identified would be apparent in the manner in which the First Information Report has been instituted and the delay in sending the First Information Report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate which has remained unexplained. It is further submitted that the seizure of the alleged stolen articles is not supported by exhibiting the articles in Court or proving the seizure list as such, it has been argued that this is a case of false implication. 4. Saini Sharma, P.W. 3 is the informant of this case and his evidence would be most relevant for the purposes of establishing whether these appellants were involved in the aforesaid occurrence. Saini Sharma admits that all the appellants are his Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.345 of 2000 dt.05-09-2012 4 / 9 4 neighbours and that they have their agricultural land by the side of the land of the informant. He has stated that they had come to commit dacoity with their faces uncovered. According to this witness, the recovery of the stolen articles was made on 10.7.1994 itself. The most spectacular part of the evidence of this witness is the statement he has made regarding lodging of the First Information Report. As pointed out, the occurrence took place in the night of 8/9th July, 1994. At paragraph 11, P.W. 3 states that he went to the police station to inform them regarding the dacoity at about 7 A.M in the morning of ninth. According to the informant, the Investigating Officer did not take his ‘Fardbeyan’ at the police station but recorded his ‘Fardbeyan’ at about 8 or 9 A.M. at his house. This fact is contrary to the actual First Information Report which says that the ‘Fardbeyan’ was recorded at 2.30 hours. According to Saini Sharma, he has identified the stolen articles on 10.2.1994 at 12 O’clock in the afternoon which is very strange as it appears that the seizure was made even before the First Information Report was lodged. 5. Vidyanand Sharma, P.W. 4 is the son of the informant. He claims to have identified Nandi, Methar and Bhajan Sharma in the torch light. He admits that all the appellants are his neighbours and li

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.