Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1593 (PAT)

Munni Lal Sahni v. State of Bihar

2012-11-29

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT (ORAL) S.A. Khan, J.- The sole appellant has been found guilty under Sections 395, 396 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 7 years respectively. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. All the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The occurrence took place on 7.10.1988. The F.I.R. was instituted by Ram Ekbal Tiwary, PW 4. The prosecution case is that the informant Ram Ekbal Tiwary alongwith other co-villagers had taken the body of a co-villager to the burning ghat to perform the last rites. In the meantime, a group of dacoits came to the ghat and began to commit loot by threatening the informant and the co-villagers on the point of pistol. They stole money and other articles carried by the villagers. In the meantime, one of the co-villagers gave information to the police who came to the place of occurrence on a jeep. On seeing the jeep, the dacoits hurled bombs and began to fire at the police personnels which resulted in counter-firing by the police personnel. The dacoits then boarded on two boats to escape from the police team. They continued to fire indiscriminately causing injuries to two police personnel. In retaliation and self-defence, police also opened fire which damaged the boats used by the dacoits. Some of the dacoits jumped into the river and when they came near the bank of the river, two dacoits namely Mahendra Sahni and Sanichar Sahni were caught by the police team. One of the dacoits who was injured ran towards the village. The police traced him on the basis of trail of blood which led to the house of one Vijay Sahni. They (police) managed to get Vijay Sahni to open the door and thereafter arrested Rajendra Sahni who had received injury on his arm. The dacoits were taken into police custody. On being questioned they have disclosed the names of the persons who had accompanied them to commit the said crime. Amongst the persons named is the appellant Munni Lal Sahni. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Munni Lal Sahni surrendered and faced the trial. 3. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses in this case. On being questioned they have disclosed the names of the persons who had accompanied them to commit the said crime. Amongst the persons named is the appellant Munni Lal Sahni. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Munni Lal Sahni surrendered and faced the trial. 3. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses in this case. PW 4 Ram Ekbal Tiwary has supported the prosecution version regarding the manner of occurrence, the arrest of four dacoits and has also stated that the dacoits had disclosed the names of others who were supposedly involved in the act of dacoity. PW 4 the informant could not identify the appellant in the dock. In fact, he has categorically stated that he had not identified Munni Lal Sahni during the occurrence. 4. PW 1 Mahesh 'Kumar Thakur has stated in chief that the persons caught on the spot disclosed the names of the persons accompanying them. In fact, PW 1 states that all the four dacoits named several persons but he could remember the name of only Nantu Thakur.- On the next day when the witness was examined again, he has named the appellant and others. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this witness had not named the appellant at the first instance, but due to obvious tutoring, he could disclose the name of the appellant and others on the following day. Therefore, his evidence regarding this aspect should not be believed. I agree with the reasoning of the counsel for the appellant, and the evidence of PW 1 has to be discarded as initially he was not •able to disclose the name of the appellant. 5. PW 2 Ram Lagan Thakur and PW 3 Nand Kishore Pandey are villagers. They have specifically stated that they cannot identify the appellant in Court and had not identified him and one of the persons who had committed dacoity at the time when it took place. Therefore, their evidence is of no help to the prosecution. PW 5 Ganga Yadav, who was posted as A.S.I. in Kotwali Police Station on the alleged date of occurrence, remembers only three names out of the names disclosed by the dacoits and the appellant is one of them. 6. Therefore, apart from the so-called confessional statement of co-accused, it would appear that there is no other material to support the involvement of the appellant in the said occurrence. 6. Therefore, apart from the so-called confessional statement of co-accused, it would appear that there is no other material to support the involvement of the appellant in the said occurrence. The I.O. of this case PW 7 has stated that the witnesses had disclosed before him that Mahendra Sahni, Sanichar Sahni, Rajendra Sahni and Vijay Sahni had named Munni Lal Sahni as one of the persons who had participated in the dacoity. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the trial Court had convicted the appellant. It is well settled law that confessional statement supposedly made before the police cannot be used as a piece of evidence against the accused. It is apparent that apart from the aforesaid oral confessional statement of co-accused, there is no other material which could establish the guilt of the appellant. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction is set aside and the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.