Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 262 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 8.12.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 408 of 92/ (43 of 94) by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai. ****** PARMANAND SINGH @ PARO SINGH S/O LATE DINA NATH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- MUBARAKPUR, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 21 OF 1996 ******** 1. RAM BALI TANTI, S/O DORIK TANTI 2. NARAYAN TANTI S/O LAKHAN TANTI 3. RAJENDRA PODDAR S/O SONELAL PODDAR 4. RAM NUNU TANTI S/O KHAKHAR TANTI 5. CHATTISH PASWAN S/O SINGHESHWAR PASWAN ALL R/O VILLAGE- CHANDAUR, (MADHEPURA) P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARI. 6. BENGALI PASWAN S/O SUBALAL PASWAN R/O VILLAGE- BHADIHE, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. ……..….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma Sr. Adv. For the State : R.B. Roy Raman APP. : Mrs. Indu Bela Pandey APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 262 of 1995 and the appellant nos. 3 to 6 of Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 1996 have been convicted under Section 395 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years whereas the appellant of 262 of 1995 and appellant nos. 1 and 2 of Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 1996 have been convicted under Section 414 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 408 of 92/ (43 of 94) by the judgment dated 8.12.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that a dacoity was committed in the house of P.W. 13 on the night of 11/12-4-1992 by 14 to 15 dacoits and large number of articles were taken away by the miscreants. 3. During trial the prosecution examined 15 witnesses out of whom P.W.1, 5, 8, 10, 13 belong to the same family. P.W. 2 is the neighbour of the informant P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are formal in nature, P.W. 7 is the Magistrate who got conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused persons whereas P.W. 15 is the Magistrate who got conducted the Test Identification Parade of the articles. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer. 4. During trial P.W. 1, 5 and 13 named appellant Ramnunu Tanti whereas P.W. 1 and 5 named appellant Parmanand Singh. However, these witnesses conceded with these two accused persons used to reside in the same village and a few days before the occurrence an altercation had taken place between one of the family members of the informant and these two appellants despite which the fact that these two appellants were not named in the First Information Report. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the prosecution case about the participation of these two appellants. 5. Now, as for the case of the appellants Bengali Paswan, Rajendra Poddar & Ram Bali Tanti is concerned P.W. 7 who got conducted the Test Identification Parade has deposed that P.W. 1, 2 and 13 have identified three of them in the Test Identification Parade on 27.4.1992. 6. In the evidence of P.W.1, she has stated that the dacoits who were arrested by the police were present at the police station and, therefore, evidently the Test Identification Parade has no meaning. From the evidence of P.W. 2 it appears that he has stated that he did not identify any dacoit and yet he is said to have identified Rajendra Poddar & Bengali Paswan in the Test Identification Parade. In view of the evidence of P.W. 1 who happens to be wife of the informant that the appellants had been shown to them at the police station, the evidence of P.W. 13 who is the informant himself has no meaning. 7. As far as the case of appellants Chattish Paswan is concerned, it appears that P.W. 6 has identified the appellant in the court but the said identification has no meaning in absence of any earlier Test Identification Parade and, therefore, appellant Chattish Paswan is given benefit to doubt. As for the next appellant i.e. Narayan Tanti, it appears that the Investigating Officer P.W. 9 has stated that his house was searched on 14.4.1992 but there was no recovery from his house. Under the circumstances, it appears that there is absolutely no evidence against any of the appellants. 8. In view of such, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 408 of 92/ (43 of 94) by the judgment dated 8.12.1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 26th April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.