Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1139 (PAT)

Mahendra Pandit v. State Of Bihar

2011-06-21

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2011
JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under section 395 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Nawadah, by judgment and order of conviction dated 05.07.1996 and 06.07.1996 respectively in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1994/ 372 of 1994. 2. The case of the prosecution is that 18.03.1994 a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant by unknown dacoits. 3. During trial the prosecution examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W.10 is the Magistrate, who conducted the test identification parade, whereas, P.W. 1 and 2 are formal witnesses. P.W.7 is the police officer, who initiated the case, whereas, P.W.8 is the main Investigating Officer. P.W.9 is also the police officer, who merely submitted the charge sheet. P.W. 5 is the informant, whereas, P.W. 4 is the father of the informant, P.W.3 is the wife of the informant, P.W.6 is the niece of the informant. The appellant was allegedly arrested on suspicion and put on test identification parade where he was identified by P.W. 3 and 5 i.e. the informant and his wife. 4. The defence also examined two witnesses mainly for the reason that the appellant was residing within one kilometer from the village of occurrence and was well known to the informant and, therefore, non-mentioning of his name in the First Information Report was fatal to the prosecution. 5. On going through the evidence on record, I find that the Investigating Officer, who arrested the appellant, stated that the appellant was taken to the village where he was visible to the villagers and, therefore, the test identification parade conducted later on is totally meaning less. Moreover, the fact that the appellant used to reside within one kilometer away from the village of occurrence is also well substantiated and, therefore, his name not being mentioned in the First Information Report is highly suspicious. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 395 Indian Penal Code. He is also discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.