Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 995 (PAT)

Siya Ram Prasad v. State of Bihar

2012-07-19

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
SHEEMA ALI KHAN, J.:–This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, in Sessions Trial No.376 of 1989 convicting all the three appellants under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 11.5.1985 at about 8-45 p.m. about 10/15 dacoits entered the house of Jawahar Paswan to commit dacoity. The informant narrates that the dacoits assaulted him and demanded the key of the cupboard. Subsequently, they snatched the key from his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and looted away Rs.5,000/-, other silver and golden ornaments kept in the cupboard and other items such as clothes etc. The informant has disclosed he was able to identify them in the torch light flashed by the dacoits. He identified seven persons including these appellants. Some of the dacoits had partly covered their face. 3. Arvind Kumar (P.W.2) had disclosed to the informant that he had identified Siya Ram Prasad standing at the door of P.W.1. asking the dacoits to hurry up the job, in the headlight of jeep, while returning home. P.W.2 was returning home, at the time when the dacoits had entered his house to commit dacoity. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid narration of the informant(P.W.3), a case was instituted and the appellants were arrested. It may be stated that the investigating officer has not been examined in this case and conviction is on the basis of the evidence of the four appellants i.e., the father-in-law (P.W.1), nephew of the informant (P.W.2), sister in law of the informant (P.W.4) and the informant himself. 5. P.W.1 Kallu Paswan is father-in-law of the informant. He claims that he had not come to visit the house of his son-in-law. He used to stay in the house of his daughter. This witness is not of much help to the prosecution because he says that he did not identify any of the dacoits. He just supported the factum of dacoity. 6. P.W.2, Arvind Kumar, has stated that while he was returning on his jeep, he saw three or four persons standing outside his house. Amongst them he identified Siya Ram Prasad(appellant no.1). He says that he had identified three others, namely, Sarfuddin Chik, Hardeo Koeri and younger son of Alijan Mian as well. 7. 6. P.W.2, Arvind Kumar, has stated that while he was returning on his jeep, he saw three or four persons standing outside his house. Amongst them he identified Siya Ram Prasad(appellant no.1). He says that he had identified three others, namely, Sarfuddin Chik, Hardeo Koeri and younger son of Alijan Mian as well. 7. In the cross-examination, he (P.W.2) has said that the house of Siya Ram Prasad is by the side of his house. He also admits that his father purchased a piece of land just adjacent to the house of appellant no.1. He claims that Hardeo Koeri is the son of Siya Ram Prasad. It has been stated that Siya Ram Prasad was a contractor of building materials known as “Chhowa” . Appellant No.2 Ram Padarath Prasad is the brother of Siya Ram Prasad. Appellant Ram Kripal is the brother-in-law (sala) of Siya Ram. There was a criminal case lodged in the year 1984 by Ram Padarath Prasad(appellant no.2) which concluded before this occurrence took place. He claims that the occurrence took place because of enmity and earlier criminal case, as well as due to competition to purchase the piece of land which is adjacent to the house of the appellant Siya Ram Prasad He supports the F.I.R. in this case. He has identified Hardeo Koeri, Siya Ram Prasad, Ram Padarath Prasad, Ram Kripal and Sarfuddin Chik and younger son of Alijan Mian. He has stated that father-in-law, mother-in-law of his brother had come to visit them when the occurrence took place. This statement appears to be contrary to the statement made by P.W.1 father-in-law who had stated that his wife had not come to visit the house of the informant. It appears to this Court that the appellants have been dragged in this case as they are co-villagers and neighbours. There is definite evidence of previous enmity between them, thus the dacoity became a good opportunity to implicate the appellants. At para-10 Ram Padarath Prasad(appellant no.2) stated that he lodged case against P.W.3 and some other being case no.883 of 1984. 8. P.W.4 was examined in this case. She is the wife of Sita Ram Paswan. She supported the occurrence and states that dacoits have snatched the key of the cupboard and had taken away money, silver and gold ornaments. She claims to have identified Sarfuddin Chik and younger son of Alijan Mian during the occurrence. 8. P.W.4 was examined in this case. She is the wife of Sita Ram Paswan. She supported the occurrence and states that dacoits have snatched the key of the cupboard and had taken away money, silver and gold ornaments. She claims to have identified Sarfuddin Chik and younger son of Alijan Mian during the occurrence. She stated that her husband is a Dy. Superintendent of Police(mobile) at present. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that prosecution has failed to prove their case and their claim to have identified the appellants is motivated one. It is obvious that previous enmity has been accepted by P.Ws. 2 and 3, namely, Siya Ram and his brother Ram Padarath. He further submits that Siya Ram Prasad admittedly is a neighbour of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and it cannot be accepted that he would come and commit dacoity without hiding his identity. The manner in which the witnesses have deposed and the fact that not a single person of the village has come to support the occurrence, much less the involvement of these appellants in the occurrence, indicates that they have deliberately been named by the informant and his family members in this case. 10. A man who is a neighbour and admittedly has a business in the village would not ordinarily be involved in committing such a crime, such as dacoity, in his neighbours house unless he comes from a criminal background. In this particular case the witnesses accept that the appellants do not have a criminal background. Apart from this, it is quite unbelievable that the appellants had come to commit dacoity by covering their faces partly so that they could easily be identified by the informant and his family members. I find it very difficult to believe the involvement of these appellants in the incident as described by the informant and P.W.2. In fact, P.W.2 has stated that the appellant no.1 is a contractor and a next door neighbour of the informant and that there was a dispute between them from before. Surprisingly, even after the dacoity was committed, the villagers, did not try to chase the miscreants or take any action against Siya Ram Prasad and his two brothers. The investigating officer would have been able to substantiate this aspect of the matter. Unfortunately, he has not been examined. Surprisingly, even after the dacoity was committed, the villagers, did not try to chase the miscreants or take any action against Siya Ram Prasad and his two brothers. The investigating officer would have been able to substantiate this aspect of the matter. Unfortunately, he has not been examined. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants cannot be held guilty in absence of sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. 11. In the result, since there is lack of proper evidence to hold the appellants guilty in this case, I set aside the judgment dated 13.12.2000 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Motihari, convicting them under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. This criminal appeal is allowed. The appellants who are on bail are being discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.