Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1 (PAT)

Ram Ashish Mahto v. State of Bihar

2012-01-02

MANDHATA SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.-Fardbeyan of Mahabir Rai informant of the case has been made basis for the F.I.R. which is to the effect that dacoity committed in his house on 2.6.1976 at 2.30 a.m., at that time informant was sleeping on a cot at his Darwaza along with Ram Naresh Rai PW 1 and Ramashis Rai. His daughter-in-law was ill. His wife came out of the house about midnight to take water from well for his ailing daughter-in-law, in the meantime 20-25 persons came at his Darwaza, of them 8-10 remained outside the house and rest entered his angan. Informant, his son and Bhagna were assaulted by them. Any how his brother succeeded to escape from there, raised alarm and dacoits decamped with looted articles including clothes, ornaments and cash. 2. After concluding the trial, the case is ended in conviction and sentence to appellants validity of which is questioned by filing this appeal. 3. In all 14 witnesses are examined in the case. They are PW 1 Ram Naresh Rai, PW 2 Sita Devi, PW 3 Ram Dulari Devi, PW 4 Shanti Devi, PW 5 Mahabir Rai informant of the case, PW 6 Subha Paswan, PW 7 Baban Paswan, PW 8 Ram Pari Devi, PW 9 Hemant Mishra, PW 10 Abhay Kumar Saran, PW 11 Ram Japit Rai, PW 12 Dr. L.N. Prasad, PW 13 Bhubaneshwar Prasad Singh and PW 14 Brajnandan Prasad. Of witnesses, P.Ws 1 to 5 are family members of the informant, P.Ws 6,7,8 and 11 are tendered witnesses to state nothing about taking place of the incident. P.Ws 13 and 14 are formal witnesses to exhibit some documents. Exhibits 1 and 1/1 are T.I. chart. Exhibit 3 is fardbeyan. Exhibit 4 is the formal F.I.R., and Exhibit 5 is paragraphs 1 to 96 of the case diary. 4. Factum of commitment of dacoity is not doubted either in course of trial or at this stage which is corroborated by P.Ws 1 to 5 followed by injury reports corroborated by PW 12 Dr. L.N. Prasad to state the injury received by PW 5 informant of the case and PW 1 son of the informant. Conviction is reached basing T.I. parade conducted in the case. Exhibits 1 and 1/1 are charts of T.I. parade exhibited in the case for identification of Ramashis Mahto and Rajendra Rai. 5. L.N. Prasad to state the injury received by PW 5 informant of the case and PW 1 son of the informant. Conviction is reached basing T.I. parade conducted in the case. Exhibits 1 and 1/1 are charts of T.I. parade exhibited in the case for identification of Ramashis Mahto and Rajendra Rai. 5. Stress is on the point that identification of the appellants cannot be accepted on the ground that there was inordinate delay in holding of T.I. parade and both the appellants were known to the informant, reason for the same was that appellant No. 1 was in inimical term with Samdhi of the informant and appellant No. 2 was married to neighbours daughter of the informant. Appellant No. 1 surrendered in the Court on 9.6.1976 but put on T.I. parade on 9.9.1976 in the Court campus while appellant No.2 was arrested in the case on 16.6.1976 and put on T.I. parade on 16.7.1976 and another point is of single identification that is by PW 5 informant of the case. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that in the discussed circumstance, a single identification cannot be relied for safe conviction. 6. Witnesses have been queried/cross-examined on the point of relation. PW 4 in paragraph 3 of her cross-examination states that Ishwari Rai is Samdhi of informant. PW 5 in paragraph 4 of his cross examination states that Ishwari Rai informed the Police on telephone about the incident and in paragraph 8 states about marriage of Rajendra Rai in his village. D.W.1 is also there to state that Rajendra Rai was married informants village. 7. In the discussed circumstance it is clear that T.I. parade is conducted in the case after a period of three months and one and half month respectively, appellants were known to the informant due to relation of the informant or appellant No.2 and informant is sole witness to identify appellants in different T.I. parade conducted in the case. So, in my view, also basing such identification conviction of appellants is not safe. Therefore, conclusion reached by the trial Court is not liable to sustain. 8. The appeal is accordingly, allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 1979 is set aside. As the appellants are on bail, they shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 9. Therefore, conclusion reached by the trial Court is not liable to sustain. 8. The appeal is accordingly, allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 1979 is set aside. As the appellants are on bail, they shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 9. Let a copy of judgment along with lower Court records be sent back to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal allowed.