Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 399 OF 2000 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 401 OF 2000 ======================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI ANANT VIJAY SINGH, 5TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 182 OF 1998 ARISING OUT OF TURKAULIYA POLICE STATION CASE NO. 120 OF 1997) ======================================================== 1. MOHAN SAHNI @ MOHAN SAHANI, SON OF RAM LAKHAN SAHNI 2. JITENDRA SAHNI @ JITENDRA SAHANI, SON OF BIGU SAHNI BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAGHUNATHPUR, POLICE STATION TURKOULIYA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN .... .... APPELLANTS (CR. APP. 399/2000) WITH 1. SHEO PUJAN SAHANI, SON OF LATE BHOLA SAHNI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARIYARIYA, POLICE STATION SANGRAMPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 2. PRAYAGE SAHANI, SON OF LATE SITA SAHANI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAGHUNATHPUR, POLICE STATION TURKOULIYA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN .... .... APPELLANTS (CR. APP. 401/2000) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR.... .... RESPONDENT (IN BOTH APPEALS) ======================================================== APPEARANCE : (IN CR. APP (SJ) NO. 399 OF 2000) FOR THE APPELLANTS : MR. D. K. TONDON, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. (IN CR. APP (SJ) NO. 401 OF 2000) FOR THE APPELLANTS : MR. D. K. TONDON, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. ======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 31-07-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28th September, 2000 passed by the 5th Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.399 of 2000 dt.31-07-2012 2 / 9 2 Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 182 of 1998 whereby the above named four appellants have been found guilty for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and have also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellants were also convicted under [STATUTE] and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant Prayag Sahani was also convicted under [STATUTE] and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The appellant Prayag Sahani was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of which, he would have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as instituted on the statement of the informant Nagina Ram, who was injured during the occurrence, is that while he was returning from the Motihari Bazaar, and reached Sanjivinisura factory near a bridge, it is alleged that Hari Sahani opened fire, which hit him on his chest, whereas Prayag Sahani and Jitendra Sahani assaulted him on his chest, due to which he fell down. It is further alleged that the appellants and one other looted all his Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.399 of 2000 dt.31-07-2012 3 / 9 3 articles and money. It is also alleged that the miscreants have looted several other persons, amongst whom the informant identified Upendra Mishra, Sanjay Singh, Sheoshankar Rai, Md. Shabuddin and Shambhu Sah. After injuring the informant, the miscreants ran away from the place of occurrence. The villagers gathered and took the injured to the hospital for treatment. 3. In this case, 12 witnesses have been examined. The Doctor has been examined as PW 11 and the Investigating Officer has been examined as PW 12. PW 10 is the C.O., Turkauliya at the relevant time and he had conducted the Test Identification Parade of articles which were recovered from the house of Prayag Sahani. The others are victims of the dacoity and the family members of the informant. 4. PW 1 Ram Dayal Rai, who is the brother of the informant, had come to the place of occurrence when he heard about it from the villagers. He is not an eye-witness to the occurrence, but he has supported the fact that his brother was badly injured by the dacoits at the time of occurrence. 5. PW 2 Birendra Ram was returning from Birganj when he was apprehended and his belongings were snatched away by the miscreants. He named a number of persons. He also identified the appellants along with one Hari Sahani and Mohan Sahani. This witness identified Sheopujan Sahani but was not able to identify Jitendra by name, he identified Mohan Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.399 of 2000 dt.31-07-2012 4 / 9 4 as Jitendra in the Dock. 6. PW 4 Manager Sahani claims that he too was the victim of the said dacoity and was also injured in the dacoity, although there is no medical report to support this aspect of the matter. Before the Trial Court, while adducing his evidence, he shows the injuries to the Trial Judge and supports the case of the prosecution by saying that he heard the sound of firing. It has been argued that this witness states that he heard three rounds being fired. It is further submitted that this witness has not said a word regarding the allegation of inflicting chura blow on the informant. It is, therefore, contended that there are contradictions in the deposition of this witness and this Court should not believe him. The submission aforesaid on behalf of the appellants, that the evidence of PW 4 cannot be accepted by this Court for the reason that it is not essential that all the persons who were victims of the dacoity would reveal each and every fact. This witness supports the prosecution version that several persons were looted, amongst them, he had identified Lal Mohammad, Ram Pravesh Sahani and Shambhu. He

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.