Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1043 of 2012 (3) dt.19-10-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1043 of 2012 ====================================================== Dilip Jha son of Harendra Jha, resident of village Sihaul, P.S.Bihra, District Saharsa .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Taranand Jha 3. Shyamanand Jha 4. Vidyanand Jha 5. Parjhanand Jha All are sons of Maheshwar Jha 6. Shailendra Jha son of Shyamanand Jha 7. Pinkoo Jha son of Vidyanand Jha 8. Jitendra Jha @ Kanhaiya Jha son of Shyamanand Jha 9. Guddoo Jha son of Taranand Jha All are residents of village Sihaul, P.S.Bihra, District Saharsa .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. None For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.K.Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) ---------------- 3 19-10-2012 Nobody appears on repeated calls on behalf of the appellants. Yesterday when the appeal was called, none had appeared. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 06.08.2012 passed by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge I, Saharsa in Sessions Trial Case No. 28 of 2006 arising out of Bihra P.S.Case no. 02 of 2003 whereby all the accused persons (respondent nos. 2 to 9 in this appeal) have been acquitted Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1043 of 2012 (3) dt.19-10-2012 of the charges under [STATUTE] . None appeared on behalf the appellant. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We have perused the judgment. The trial court after analyzing the evidences found a number of lacune i.e. (i) all the material witnesses were not examined (ii) no injury report of any injured was brought on the record (iii) Neither burnt article was produced nor any seizure list of alleged burnt articles or ashes of crops are brought on the record (iv) the details of the burnt articles were not given (v) the dispute of partition between the parties was admitted and (vi) the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was nor reliable. The trial court has given cogent reason for arriving at the conclusion and on that basis the accused persons were acquitted. The impugned judgment appears to be correct and requires no interference by this Court. In the result, this appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. Tahir/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1043 of 2012 (3) dt.19-10-2012

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.