Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1657 (PAT)

RAJA YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR

2012-12-07

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
ORAL JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. The appellants have been found guilty under Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of which, they are required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case has been instituted on the fardbayan of Ganauri Prasad. It is alleged that he was in his house on 04.11.1999 at about 06:30 PM, when he heard some persons banging at his door. It is said that these persons fired 2-3 rounds. The informant went on his roof and shouted for help, thereafter the villagers gathered near his house and the dacoits ran away. After the dacoits ran away, he opened his door and told the villagers regarding the attempt of the miscreants to break open his door and loot away the household articles. The villagers chased the dacoits and caught these appellants. The appellants were retained by the informant and handed over to the Investigating Officer, who came on 05.11.1999 to record the fardbayan of the informant. 3. The prosecution has examined twelve witnesses in this case. PWs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 have been declared hostile, whereas PW 11 has been tendered for cross-examination. 4. The entire case hinges on the evidence of PW 9, the informant Ganuari Prasad and PW 1 Manoj Kumar Yadav. I shall begin with the evidence of the informant, PW 9. He has supported the prosecution version. It is very important to note paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, where he admits that after the dacoits had run away from the village, he opened the door of his house and allowed the villagers to enter. He disclosed the occurrence to them. According to the informant, the villagers were present in his house for half an hour, after which they left the place to chase the dacoits and came back with these two appellants. This witness has also stated that he knew the appellant Raja Yadav, who has his field in the boundary of the village of the informant. He also admits that Raja Yadav and his cousin had told the villagers that they were innocent and they had come to examine their field, where they were caught by the villagers. This witness has also stated that he knew the appellant Raja Yadav, who has his field in the boundary of the village of the informant. He also admits that Raja Yadav and his cousin had told the villagers that they were innocent and they had come to examine their field, where they were caught by the villagers. The villagers, on the other hand, have stated before the informant that these two appellants were in the habit of raising disputes with the villagers and as such, they suspect that they were involved in the said occurrence. 5. PW 1 Manoj Kumar Yadav has similarly stated that after the occurrence, when the villagers caught these two appellants, they have professed their innocence and have stated that they were caught while they were returning from their field. 6. In view of the statement made by the informant regarding the fact that these two appellants were known to him and that they have professed their innocence and the fact that they had claim that they were returning from their field when they were caught by the villagers, leads this Court to the conclusion that they have been deliberately taken into the custody by the villagers due to the earlier enmity disclosed by PW 9. 7. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the appellants cannot be convicted for the offences under Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the appellants are acquitted. The appellants are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed.