Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.384 OF 1994 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions case No.109 of 1984] BALIRAM MANDAL, ACCUSED NO.4 IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW, SON OF LATE MAULU MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARAHI GANGOT TOLI, P.S. SONBARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA (CONVICT) …………………….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pd. Singh Advocate Mr. Gopal Pd. Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash Upadhyaya, Advocate Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Upadhyaya, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay kumar-2, 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. 395 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for five years by a judgment dated 22.8.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions case No.109 of 1984. The case of the prosecution is that a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant (P.W.9) on 3.1.1980 in which he identified the present appellant and others. During trial the prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.4 and P.W.7 have been tendered. P.W.2 has been declared hostile. P.W.5 went to the place of occurrence after the dacoity and he did not identify any of the dacoits nor was any dacoit caught in his presence. P.W.3 similarly has not identified anyone but he has stated that upon chase the present appellant was caught by the prosecution - 2 - party. P.W.9 is the informant of the case and he has stated that the appellant was caught by the villagers on a chase about 100 yards away from the house. P.W.8 is the brother of the informant and stated that he had identified the appellant in course of dacoity. P.W.1 has stated that after the dacoity the miscreants were chased till half kilometer and the appellant was caught on chase there. The Investigating Officer has not been examined during trial. The defence of the appellant was that he had been falsely implicated on account of an earlier dispute between P.W.1 and P.W.8 and the story of having been caught on chase was completely false. The only evidence therefore against the appellant is that he was caught upon a chase half kilometer away from the place of occurrence. Admittedly the appellant belongs to the same area. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to set aside the conviction of the appellant giving him benefit of doubt. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 22.8.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions case No.109 of 1984 is set aside. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 8th April, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )