Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.330 OF 1994 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.9.1994 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge III, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No.50 of 1993] 1. MAHADEO MAHTO 2. BALDEO MAHTO, BOTH SONS OF LATE RAMDHANI MAHTO 3. UMESH MAHTO 4. LALAN MAHTO, BOTH SONS OF MAHADEO MAHTO 5. BIRENDRA MAHTO, SON OF SHIVNATH MAHTO 6. LULHA ALIAS SADHU MANJHI, SON OF RAUDI MANJHI 7. KAROO MAHTO, SON OF BABU RAM MAHTO 8. NAURANGI MAHTO, SON OF LALLU MAHTO 9. UDAY MAHTO, SON OF HARIHAR MAHTO 10. HARIHAR MAHTO, SON OF KESHWAR MAHTO 11. RAVINDRA MAHTO, SON OF UMESH MAHTO, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DHARAUT, P.S. MAKHDUMPUR, DISTRICT JEHANABAD …………………….. Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUMITRA DEVI W/O SHIDESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILALGE DHARAUT, P.S. MAKHDUMPUR, DIST. JEHANABAD ---------------------- Respondents Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.84 of 1995 SHRI KARU MAHOTO, S/O LATE BABU RAM MAHOTO, R/O VILLAGE DHARAUT, P.O. & P.S. MAKHDUMPUR, DISTRICT JEHANABAD, BIHAR ….. APPELLANT/ACCUSED Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ……… RESPONDENT --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Umesh Kr. Verma, Advocate --------- 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 and 364 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years by a judgment dated - 2 - 20.9.1994 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge III, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No.50 of 1993. All the eleven appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.330 of 1994 but for technical reasons the same was dismissed, upon which the appellants approached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing. However, the appellants remained in jail till 23.6.1999 on which date they were granted bail. In the mean while the appellant no.7 i.e. Karoo Mahto suppressing the fact that an appeal had been filed also on his behalf vide Criminal Appeal No.330 of 1994 filed fresh Criminal Appeal No.84 of 1995 in which he was granted bail by an order dated 22.9.1995. When this matter came to light, fresh order cancelling the bail granted to appellant no.2 was passed on 29.2.1996. However, I find that the order dated 23.6.1999 by which even the appellant no.7 was granted bail did not take note of this fact and merely stated that the appellants had remained in custody for five years and, therefore, were granted bail. The prosecution case is that on 21.7.1987 P.W.1 and P.W.2 were waylaid by the accused persons and forcibly confined and were released only when they delivered their gun and cartridges to the accused persons. During trial, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the alleged victims, whereas the P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are on the point of - 3 - the two victims being taken away by the accused persons. P.W.6 is tendered and P.W.7 is the informant. P.W.8 is formal in nature, whereas the P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer. On going through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as the rest of the material and corroborative witnesses even accepting the prosecution evidence as completely truthful no ingredient u/s.364 I.P.C. is made out and at best it would be a case u/s.347 I.P.C. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed with modification in conviction to one u/s.347 I.P.C. and sentence to the one already undergone by the appellants. Patna High Court Dated, 7th April, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )