Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 65 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.5.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 108/89 by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar. ****** 1. SABHAPATI PANDEY 2. UMAPATI PANDEY BOTH S/O MAIN PANDEY R/O VILLAGE-RAMOPATTI, SIMRI, P.S.- SIMRI, DISTRICT- BUXAR 3. SATYANARAYAN ROY S/O RAM EKBAL ROY 4. RAMJI ROY S/O LATE RAJNATH ROY BOTH R/O VILLAGE- DUDHI PATTI SIMRI, P.S.- SIMRI, DISTRICT- BUXAR. ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur Adv. : Mr. Ravi Ranjan Adv. For the State : Madhuri APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants have been convicted under Section 395 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years by the judgment dated 10.5.1995 by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 108/89. 2. The case of the prosecution is that a dacoity was committed in the house of P.W.3 the informant on 19.6.1988 in which apart from money some cattle was taken away by accused persons including the appellants. 3. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses to prove its case, out of whom P.W.4 and 5 are formal whereas P.W.3 is the informant and P.W.1 and 2 are his sons and Investigating Officer has not examined nor has any independent witness being produced by the prosecution during trial. 2 4. The defence of the appellants was that in fact the parties used in sale purchase of cattle and in fact the informant had purchased some cattle from appellant no.1 for which payment was not made but promises has been made by informant to return it. In the meanwhile the present case was instituted to avoid the return of the cattle. 5. It appears that P.W.1 and 2 have admitted that P.W.3 was engaged in business of cattle and P.W.3 also admitted this fact. In fact P.W.3 also admitted that there was a delay in returning the amount to appellant no.1 on account of which he and some others had taken way she buffalo. 6. In view of such categorical admissions by the prosecution witnesses, it is difficult to accept the prosecution case as narrated in the court. 7. Since in this background it is highly unlikely that the appellants would have committed dacoity without concealing their identity, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the judgment dated 10.5.1995 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 108/89 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The appellants are discharged for the liabilities from their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 21st April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.