Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.302 OF 1997 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.9.1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Trial No.37 of 1991] Ram Bahadur Mahto son of Rambrit Mahto, resident village Naya Tola, P.S. Manihari, District Katihar …………………….. Appellant Versus The State of Bihar ………….. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh Advocate Mrs. Vimla Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. B.B. Singh, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant has been convicted u/s.363 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for four years by a judgment dated 25.9.1997 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions case No.37 of 1991. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant Sanjay Kumar Sinha is that while he along with Fagu Paswan was passing through a river on 17.8.1990, the appellant came there and caught him on the point of a pistol while Fagu Paswan fled away. He was taken towards the river bank and threatened to kill him for the reason that his brother was not returning the money he owed to the appellant. On the informant’s cries several persons gathered there and caught the appellant and produced him before the Police Station along with the arms. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.9 Sanjay Kumar Sinha is the 2 informant. P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.12 are tendered witnesses. P.W.1 is Fagu Paswan, who was along with the informant on the date of occurrence but his evidence appears to be untrustworthy. P.W.9, the informant, has not supported the factum of occurrence. P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.2 is the brother of the informant, whereas P.W.3 is the mother of the informant and both are hearsay witnesses. P.W.4 is a witness on the factum of occurrence as also P.W.5 is said to have seen the appellant having been apprehended. P.W.7 is the Chaukidar but his evidence is completely inconsistent with the prosecution case. P.W. 12 is a witness, who was never examined before the police whereas P.W.10 is a hostile witness. P.W.11 has also been declared hostile. 4. On going through the evidence on record, I find that the informant himself has not supported the factum of occurrence and in view of such a major lapse on behalf of the prosecution, it would be unsafe to rely on the evidence of P.W.1, who is merely a corroborative witness. 5. Considering the materials on record, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 25.9.1997 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Trial No.37 of 1991 is set aside. The appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 4th July, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )