Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.54 of 1989 ***** Against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.6.1989 passed in Session Case No.9/88 by Sri Aditya Sharan, Additional Sessions Judge I, Madhepura. =========================================================== The State of Bihar .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Nunu Singh 2. Laxmi Uraun .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. For the Respondent: Mr. Ranbir Singh, Amicus Curiae =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-07-2012 Prosecution case, in brief, is that in between the intervening night of 22/23the June, 1987 informant Mustakim Khan of village Kurhan Bazar was sleeping in his house with his villagers after taking meal. His son Ainuddin was sleeping at his Bathika. Two dacoits entered his house after breaking open the door. Informant flashed his torch and threw a box on the face of one of the dacoits. He fell down. He was identified as Nunu Singh accused respondent no.1. Second one identified as Laxmi Uraun accused respondent no.2. They fled from there. 2. There was hue and cry, villagers gathered, informant came out from his house, found 10-12 dacoits with bundles of household articles. It is said that his son also disclosed about coming of three of the dacoits to him and snatching of his wrist watch. His son and daughter also claimed to identify Nunu Singh and it is said that dacoits left the place with looted household articles. 3. After concluding the trial both the respondents have been acquitted and discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds by the trial court for the Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.54 of 1989 dt.20-07-2012 2 offence under [STATUTE] . 4. In all seven witnesses are examined in the case and they are P.W.1 Bakeshwer Yadav a formal witness to prove formal F.I.R., P.W.2 Laxmi Sahu, P.W.3 Ainuddin, P.W.4 Siya Ram Sahu, P.W.5 Mustakim Khan informant of the case, P.W.6 Ishrat Khatoon daughter of informant and P.W.7 I.O. of the case. 5. Taking place of incident of dacoity is not doubted in the case. Witnesses identifying respondents are said to have some grudge to involve accused respondents falsely and other circumstances discussed and taken into consideration for the acquittal. 6. Now on behalf of the State it is submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the witnesses who have identified accused respondents. Witnesses who have identified both the accused respondents are P.W.3 son of informant and P.W.5 informant himself. Nunu Singh has been identified by P.W.6 also. Apart from other materials, involvement of respondent no.1 Nunu Singh is doubted as in paragraph 9 of his statement accused respondents along with villagers were gathered. For respondent no.2 Laxmi Uraon, P.W.3 in paragraph 21 and P.W.2 in paragraph 8 have stated about filing of a criminal case against Zainuddin son of informant by one Ram Sahni in which father of Laxmi Uraon was one of the witnesses. 7. Another circumstance to doubt the prosecution case is finding of door in tact by the I.O. which is claimed to be broken by dacoit. Statement of P.W.7 I.O. of the case is referred by the trial court. He has stated about finding the door intact. Another circumstance which goes against the prosecution is that dacoits with looted articles were outside the house. Articles from shop were taken away by them but that has been shown done by unknown criminals 12 to 14 in number. In such circumstance known criminals only would enter the house is not Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.54 of 1989 dt.20-07-2012 3 believable. Thus, I find no mistake committed by the trial court in acquitting both the accused respondents. 8. On the observations made above, evidence on record and circumstances of the case, Government Appeal No. 54 of 1989 is dismissed. Judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.6.1989 passed in Session Case No.9 of 1988 by Additional Sessions Judge I, Madhepura is affirmed. 9. Let the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial court forthwith. 10. Let a copy of first page and last page of this judgment be handed over to learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused Respondents for needful. A.I./- (Mandhata Singh, 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.