Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1217 (PAT)

Indradeo Bind v. State Of Bihar

2012-08-31

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. The two appellants have been held guilty for offences under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six years of rigorous imprisonment by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No. 382/366 of 1997. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.09.1996 when the informant Murali Ram was crossing the railway line some miscreants caught hold of Sanjay Ram P.W.2 and Suresh Ram P.W.6. They disconnected the telephone wire of the Railway Gumti and stole the belongings of the gateman, Bhagwan Singh and Sheo Pujan Singh. Thereafter the miscreants went to the village and committed dacoity in the house of Ramdeo Ram, Kera Ram, Gudari Ram, Jiut Ram, Rajnath Ram, Satya Narain Ram and the informant. After committing dacoity the miscreants fled away from the village. 3. The only point in this appeal is whether the appellants could have been convicted on the basis of the identification in the Test Identification Parade on 08.11.1996. 4. Counsel for the appellant has argued that on 04.11.1996 these appellants along with one another were apprehended by the police near the railway gumti while they were fleeing away after committing dacoity. The miscreants were apprehended with the help of some of the witnesses in the present case. They were taken to the village where they were searched and a seizure list prepared. The First Information Report as well as seizure list has been brought on record and marked as Exhibits-A and P.W.1 Kera Ram has proved the seizure list dated 04.11.1996 which is in the writing of Raghuvir Prasad. 5. The Test Identification Parade which is Exhibit-3 indicates that these two appellants were identified by Murali Ram P.W.10, Sanjay Ram, P.W.2, Suresh Ram, P.W.6, Kera Ram, P.W.1, Gudari Ram, P.W.8 and Raj Nath Ram P.W.5. This Court will, therefore, examine the evidence of these witnesses with respect to their statements made in Court vis a vis the Test Identification Parade and the evidence with respect to the arrest of the appellants on 04.11.1996. 6. Kera Ram, P.W.1 has stated at paragraph 11 that the police party was successful in apprehending the appellants and others in the morning of 04.11.1996. The villagers involved in apprehending the miscreants who helped in chasing the dacoits and finally apprehended them are P.Ws. 1, 5, 6, 8 and 10. 6. Kera Ram, P.W.1 has stated at paragraph 11 that the police party was successful in apprehending the appellants and others in the morning of 04.11.1996. The villagers involved in apprehending the miscreants who helped in chasing the dacoits and finally apprehended them are P.Ws. 1, 5, 6, 8 and 10. It has been categorically stated that these persons were chased by the police and apprehended near the railway line. At paragraph 12, it has been stated that the appellants were taken to the village and seizure list was prepared there. 7. At paragraph 13 he states that he went in jail to identify the persons who were responsible for committing dacoity on 16.09.1996. This witness identified the appellants and Gudari Chaudhary. 8. P.W.2 Sanjay Ram has stated at paragraph 10 that he along with the police party and P.Ws. 6, 8 and 10 chased the miscreants on 04.11.1996 and caught them. It is said that they were brought to the village from where they were taken to the Police Station. P.W.3 and 4 have not said any evidence regarding the occurrence which took place on 04.11.1996. 9. P.W.5 Rajnath Ram has stated at paragraph 4 that the dacoits were caught somewhere on G.T. road according to him, the dacoits were not caught in the village. He has also identified the appellants in the Test Identification Parade. 10. P.W.6 Suresh Ram has stated at paragraph 5 that some dacoits were caught on 04.11.1996 near the railway gumti with the help of the Dafadar, Choukidar and some of the villagers. He denies that having participated in the said chase. 11. P.W.8, Gudari Ram is the next witness on this point. At paragraph 5 he says that he does not remember whether dacaoits were caught near the railway line or not. He has no knowledge regarding the said apprehension of dacoits near the village. He also denies that there was any search conducted in the village where the dacoits were caught and he has identified the accused persons in the jail where he says he saw them for the first time. Regarding his signature on Exbhibt-8, which is the seizure list prepared on 04.11.1996, this witness denies that he has any knowledge regarding the contents of that document. He also denies that he has given evidence in Court with respect to the seizure list prepared on 04.11.1996. 12. Regarding his signature on Exbhibt-8, which is the seizure list prepared on 04.11.1996, this witness denies that he has any knowledge regarding the contents of that document. He also denies that he has given evidence in Court with respect to the seizure list prepared on 04.11.1996. 12. P.W.10 Murali Ram is the informant of the present case, while giving evidence in Court he has stated at paragraph 6 that he had heard that some persons were caught with the help of the villagers while committing dacoity. 13. It would, therefore, appear that there are two versions regarding the question of identification. According to P.W.1 and P.W. 2 the villagers including these two were involved in helping the police party to apprehend some miscreants on 04.11.1996. The miscreants were taken to the village where seizure list was prepared. There is some difference between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 inasmuch as P.W.1 admits that the presence of P.Ws.2, 6, 8, 5 and 10 whereas P.W.2 admits the presence of only P.Ws.8, 6 and 10. The other witnesses i.e. P.Ws.5, 6, 8 and 10 have given different version by stating that they were not involved in chasing the dacoits who were caught on 04.11.1996, in fact P.W.8, goes so far as to say that he does not know the contents of the documents on which he put his signature. According to this witness, he had seen the appellants for the first time in jail. 14. It is obvious to this Court that there is a contradiction regarding the question of identification. It goes without saying, that if the witnesses have an opportunity to see the appellants before they were put on Test Identification Parade the meaning and sanctity of the Test Identification Parade would be set at naught. In this case there were two versions to the identification, this Court thus will have to give the benefit of doubt to the accused persons on this count alone. 15. I, accordingly, acquit the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt. They are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. 16. This appeal is allowed.