Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 118 OF 1996 Against the judgment and order dated 25/26.04.1996 passed by Sri Kali Dayal Mishra, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda in S.Tr. No. 409/88. ************ Kapil Deo Singh, S/o Late Dwarika Singh, resident of Village-Maho, P.S.-Chandi, District-Nalanda. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. R.P. Sharma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Pd. Singh, 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 sentenced to RI for seven years by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda in S.Tr. No. 409/88 by a judgment dated 25/26.04.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant on 30.12.1983 by 20-25 unknown persons on account of which the present case was instituted. The rifle said to have been robbed from the house of the informant was recovered from the possession of the appellant on 10.06.1985 i.e. about two years later for which a separate case was instituted against the appellant but for lack of any evidence he was acquitted of the charges thereafter the investigation of this case was reopened and the appellant was put on trial. 3. During trial the prosecution examined four witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the informant who did not say anything about involvement of the present appellant in 2 the dacoity. He merely stated that he had been summoned by the police at the Police Station when he and his nephew were handed over the licensed rifle which had been stolen away by the dacoits. P.W. 2 is the Officer In-charge of Chandi P.S. and stated that on 10.06.1985 when the house of the appellant was searched a licensed rifle along with three cartridges was seized in his presence. P.W. 3 is also on the same point. P.W. 4, the Investigating Officer has also testified that the rifle was recovered from the house of the appellant. However, I find that once the prosecution has not brought any documentary evidence with regard to the rifle belonging to the appellant it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 412 IPC on mere recovery of the alleged rifle. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 25/26.04.1996 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda in S.Tr. No. 409/88 is, hereby, set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 28th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-