Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 326 OF 1994 Against the judgment and order dated 06.09.1994 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Verma, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in S.Tr. No. 283/93/76/93. ************ Md. Salamgir, resident of Village-Chandoha, P.S.- riga, District-Sitamarhi. …….(Appellant) Versus THE STAE OF BIHAR…….(Respondent) *********** For the Appellant : Sri Bindeshwar Pd. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP. ************* P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 412 IPC and sentenced to RI for six years by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in S.Tr. No. 283/93/76/93 by a judgment dated 06.09.1994. 2. The case of the prosecution is that a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant P.W. 5, Nathuni Prasad on the night of 31.03.1993 by some unknown persons including three known persons. The appellant was not named in the First Information Report but subsequently when a tape-recorder was recovered from his house on 08.06.93 he also was remanded in the present case. 3. During trial the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is a seizure witness. P.W. 2 is the brother of the informant. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are the sons of the informant. P.W. 5 is the informant himself. P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 7 is a Police Officer who participated in the raid in the house of the appellant. P.W. 8 2 is the Anchal Adhikari in whose presence TI Parade of the alleged tape-recorder was conducted. 4. From the evidence of P.W. 1 who is the sole independent seizure witness it appears that he does not belong to the same village and he denied that any recovery was made in his presence. This Court then is left with the evidence of only two official witnesses who are on the point of recovery of the tape-recorder from the house of the appellant. Moreover, there is no evidence that the tape-recorder recovered from the house of the appellant three months later was retained by him knowing that the same was stolen property. 5. In view of such lack of evidence in regard to recovery and knowledge of the Appellant, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 06.09.1994 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in S.Tr. No. 283/93/76/93 is, hereby, set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and discharged of the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 30th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-