Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 320 OF 1994 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Sheo Prasad alias Sheo Ratan Singh, S/o Fuleshwar Bhagat, R/o Village-Bishunpura, P.S.-Uchkagaon, Dist.- Gopalganj. 2. Ram Pravesh Singh, S/o Jiut Bhagat. 3. Raj Mangal Singh, S/o Faujdar Bhagat. Both R/o Village-Shihpur, Tola-Thakurai Kararia, P.S.-Meerganj, Dist.-Gopalganj. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. G.K. Jha, Adv. : Mr. Shanti Pratap, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Renu Kumari, 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 396 IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years by the Sessions Judge, Gopalganj by a judgment dated 21.09.1994 in S.Tr. No. 158 of 1992. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 11/12.04.1991 a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant in which some bombs were exploded on account of which a co-villager lost his life. The informant was also injured. The appellants were named in the First Information Report. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses out of whom P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 8 and P.W. 10 are the Doctors who conducted the post- mortem examination and examined the informant respectively whereas P.W. 1, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 have been declared hostile. P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 are the material witnesses. The defence of the appellants was of totally denial and that there was land dispute between the parties for which Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C were exhibited by the defence. It demonstrated that on account of land dispute a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had been initiated between the parties. The appellants have not challenged the factum of dacoity but merely the fact that they were falsely implicated in the present case. In view of the fact that the appellants were well- known to the informant and his family members and there was active land dispute between the parties, the possibility of false implication can not be ruled out and in my view on account of this the appellants deserve to be given the benefit of doubt. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 21.09.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in S.Tr. No. 158 of 1992 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. The appeal stands allowed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 6th April, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-