Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.395 OF 1994 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.11.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria in Sessions Trial No.3 of 1994/ 457 of 1994] 1. MATEEN S/O KAREEMUDDIN @ KARU, RESIDENT OF VILALGE DORIA SONAPUR TOLA LAXMIPUR, PURANDAHA, P.S. SIMRAHA (FORBISHGANJ), DISTRICT ARARIA 2. MD. AMMEER @ AMEER MIAN S/O LAL MOHD. RESIDENT OF VILALGE GOURMHI, P.S. SIMRAHA (FARBISGHGANJ), DISTRICT ARARIA …………………….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. F.A. Khan, Advocate Mr. Md. Sufiyan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, Addl. P.P. --------- 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 seven years by a judgment dated 30.11.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria in Sessions Trial No.3 of 1994/ 457 of 1994. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.4.1993 a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant. The appellants were arrested on suspicion and thereafter put on Test Identification Parade. During trial the prosecution has examined five witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.2 is the informant and P.W.1 and P.W.3 are his family members, who have identified the appellants in Test Identification Parade. P.W.4 is the Judicial Magistrate, who - 2 - had got conducted the Test Identification Parade on 26.4.1993 and on the fact that the appellants had been identified by the three witnesses. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer, who corroborated the factum of dacoity. The defence of the appellants was that in fact the appellants were well known to the prosecution party and there have been some dispute between the parties earlier, on account of which they were wrongly identified in the Test Identification Parade. The further defence was that the Investigating Officer had conceded that the appellants were arrested from their own house on the same night and thereafter some other houses were raided and the appellants have been taken to the informant’s house, where after they were put on Test Identification Parade and, therefore, the Test Identification Parade had no meaning. However, none of the three material witnesses remained unshaken where such a suggestion was given and there was nothing on record to show that in fact the appellants were known to the appellants from before the occurrence. This fact is also not borne out from any of the records that the appellants produced on during trial. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, I find from the order sheet of the Criminal Appeal that the appellants had not been granted bail by this Court and, therefore, it is expected that they would have been released from jail custody after having served out their sentence and in case it has not been done, the Trial Court should take - 3 - immediate steps for their release, if they have served out their sentence. Patna High Court Dated, 8th April, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )