Criminal Appeal No.242 OF 1996 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.9.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No.88 of 1994] WAKIL SINGH @ PRASURAM SINGH SON OF RAM NIHORA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHERHA, P.S. CHARPOKHERI, DISTRICT BHOJPUR (ARRAH) ………. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent WITH Criminal Appeal No.248 of 1996 (S.J.) NATHU YADAV SON OF MUKHA LAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHERHA, P.S. CHARPOKHARI, DISTRICT BHOJPUR (ARRAH) ……. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ……….. Respondent -------- For the Appellants : Mr. Y.P. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, Addl. P.P. (In Cr. A. No.242 of 1996) Mr. R.B. Roy Raman, Addl. P.P. (In Cr. A. No.248 of 1996) --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellants have been convicted u/s.395 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of which simple imprisonment for one month by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No.88 of 1994 by a judgment dated 7.9.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of - 2 - 20.11.1992 a dacoity was committed in the house of P.W.4 by the present appellants and 10-12 unknown dacoits. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined five witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1, who is the aunt of the informant, has deposed as a hearsay witness but has been disbelieved by the court below. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the inmates of the P.W.4, whereas P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. 4. The defence examined two witnesses on its behalf mainly on the point of alibi and also exhibited some documents to show that they were on litigating terms with one Ram Prasad Singh as per Exhibit A/1. 5. The attention of P.W.4 in paragraph 5 was drawn to the effect that Ram Prasad Singh, who admitted this fact, was his grand father but has denied being on litigating terms with the appellants even though he admitted about Demarcation Case No.37 of 1989-90. The Complaint case No.351 of 1991 also shows that the informant and the appellant Nathu Yadav were on litigating terms. The appellant Wakil Singh happends to be the nephew of Nathu Yadav. P.W.3 in paragraph 5 has stated that the informant had gone to talk with Ram Prasad Singh before going to the Police Station as also P.W.4 has admitted this fact in paragraph 4. 6. Under the circumstances, if it is apparent that the appellants were well known to the informant and were on litigating terms and therefore a possibility of false implication of - 3 - the appellants cannot be ruled out. Thus this Court finds it difficult to rely on the testimony of these interested inimical witnesses to sustain the conviction of the appellants. 7. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 7.9.1996 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No.88 of 1994 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 20th May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )