JUDGMENT (Per: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) The sole appellant, in this appeal, is aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th December, 1987 as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge III, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No 87 of 1982/115 of 1986 by which this appellant, amongst others, has been convicted under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. When this appeal was called out repeatedly, no one appeared for the appellant. The reason is simple. This appeal has been pending before this Court for over two and half decades. We, accordingly, requested Shri Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, Advocate to assist us as amicus curiae. Paper book was supplied to him and he has addressed us at length. 3. It is also pertinent to note the reason why this appeal was pending. It appears by the impugned judgment, 12 persons were convicted and all sentenced to imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, 11 persons preferred Criminal Appeal No 645 of 1987 leaving this appellant alone. That appeal was admitted and lower Court records were called for preparation of Paper book. Later this appeal was filed. Inspite of repeated reminders by this Court to the trial Court for almost two decades, the trial Court neither sent the lower Court records, which it did not have having sent in the earlier appeal, nor informed this Court about the other appeal pending in this Court in which the lower Court records have already been sent. The result was this appeal could not be made ready for hearing nor could it be made analogous to Criminal Appeal No 645 of 1987 and remained pending. In 2002, the other appeal that is Criminal Appeal No 645 of 1987 was taken up, again without assistance from the appellants and after hearing the amicus curiae, a Division Bench of this Court partly allowed the said appeal by judgment and order dated 12th of August, 2002. Five appellants, namely, Panchu Mahto, Bilas Baitha, Thaga Mahto, Deo Narain Mahto and Ganeshi Mahto, out of the seven appellants, were acquitted. In so far as appellants Nand Kishore Mahto, Ram Sarup Mahto, though their convictions were upheld, their sentences were reduced to period undergone. Five appellants, namely, Panchu Mahto, Bilas Baitha, Thaga Mahto, Deo Narain Mahto and Ganeshi Mahto, out of the seven appellants, were acquitted. In so far as appellants Nand Kishore Mahto, Ram Sarup Mahto, though their convictions were upheld, their sentences were reduced to period undergone. In respect of the rest four appellants that is Ram Lagan Mahto, Ram Ekbal Mahto, Bindeshwar Mahto and Ram Sundar Mahto, their convictions were upheld but their sentences were reduced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. These four appellants, being dissatisfied by the decision of this Court, then appealed to the Apex Court and the Apex Court, in Criminal Appeal No 503 of 2003, by judgment and order dated 07.10.2009, dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence to 3 years. It is after the Apex Court disposed of the said matter that the records were then available to the Registry for readying this appeal for hearing. 4. The prosecution case is based on the Fardbayan of PW 16 Jai Kishun Mahto, inter alia, alleging that in the midnight of 29-30th of November 1981, some dacoits had come and committed dacoity in five houses in the village. Some of the dacoits were armed. They had looted certain properties and hurt some persons. They had then fled away. Out of the dacoits, six persons were named but not the appellant. After the Fardbayan was recorded and the case was formally registered, in course of investigation, the appellant was allegedly detained by PWs 14 and 15 being Ram Kripal Rai and Ram Pratap Rai and produced before the Mukhiya (not examined) alongwith some alleged articles of dacoity. He was then handed over to the Investigating Officer (IO) alongwith the recovered goods. The goods recovered were lota, a glass, a pair of chappal and a bag. After investigation, the IO (PW 17) submitted chargesheet against ten persons, seven who were accused and three who were shown as absconders. At the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court discharged, on 01.09.1982, three persons who were shown as absconders. In course of trial, upon evidence coming to Court, Court then summoned five additional accused persons under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr P C). Thus, there were 12 persons who were tried. 5. On behalf of the sole appellant, learned amicus curiae submits that his conviction is totally unsustainable. In course of trial, upon evidence coming to Court, Court then summoned five additional accused persons under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr P C). Thus, there were 12 persons who were tried. 5. On behalf of the sole appellant, learned amicus curiae submits that his conviction is totally unsustainable. Admittedly, he was not named in the first information report (FIR). Allegedly, on suspicion, he was detained by PWs 14 and 15 being Ram Kripal Rai and Ram Pratap Rai with alleged articles of dacoity that is a glass, a lota, a bag and a pair of chappal. He was handed over to the Mukhiya who has not been examined. The Mukhiya, in turn, handed him over to the IO, the next day. It may be noted here that at one place, PW 12 Nandu Mahto has identified him as having seen him when dacoity was being conducted in his house. He had allegedly seen the appellant with a rifle standing near his bed but when we come to his detention and being handed over to the police, it is said that he had a revolver and six cartridges. How this change happened is not explained? There is only one positive identification that of PW 12 Nandu Mahto. When we examined the evidence of Nandu Mahto (PW 12), it is clear that he had made no statement to the police much less named the appellant to the police but he maintains that having seen the appellant arrested, he was able to identify. Admittedly, there was no test identification parade (TIP) conducted nor at any stage, the appellant had been named. IO admits that he had made no record of any statement made by PW 12 Nandu Mahto separately. He admits that he had neither put the recovered articles to TIP nor the appellant was subjected to TIP. What is more surprising is the IO admits that when the appellant was produced before him by the Mukhiya, who has not been examined as a prosecution witness, the appellant was injured and the IO had to get him treated. How these injuries came about on the person of the appellant has not been explained? Another important fact we must notice is that PW 12 Nandu Mahto had not made any claim of any property being taken away by the dacoits. How these injuries came about on the person of the appellant has not been explained? Another important fact we must notice is that PW 12 Nandu Mahto had not made any claim of any property being taken away by the dacoits. It is only after this appellant was detained and produced before the police and a glass and lota were recovered, a claim was made for the first time by PW 12 Nandu Mahto identifying them as his class and lota. 6. In our view, considering the sequence of events, the submission of amicus curiae appears to be correct. The appellant was first detained and then having seen him, he was arranged as an accused and things recovered from him were then alleged to be of dacoity. We may also refer to the fact leading to his detention by PWs 14 and 15 Ram Kripal Rai and Ram Pratap Rai. It is said that the appellant was crossing their house when the appellant allegedly asked the direction of village Batnaha and the distance and then when those witnesses asked him as to where he resides, appellant is said to have said that he stays in Batnaha. This is not understandable at all. If the appellant asked the direction and distance of Batnaha, which was not far away, he could not have been a resident of Batnaha because if he was a resident of Batnaha, he would know that. No one would be to say foolish that he did not know where his village was. We are not even certain as to at what time he was arrested because the IO admits that there is no entry of time in the case diary. 7. That apart if we come to the statement of the accused as recorded under Section 313 of Cr P C, as we have seen, the appellant was charged for committing dacoity in the house of Nandu Mahto (PW 12) who is the sole person who identified him as a dacoit but conspicuously this all important and vital circumstance was not at all put to him. The consequence would be that the circumstance and that too, an importance circumstance not having been put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr P C, those circumstances appearing in the evidence as against the accused, cannot be used as an evidence against him. The consequence would be that the circumstance and that too, an importance circumstance not having been put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr P C, those circumstances appearing in the evidence as against the accused, cannot be used as an evidence against him. If that be so then the factum of the appellant having committed dacoity in the house of PW 12 Nandu Mahto and carried away his glass and lota cannot be used as evidence as against the appellant. If this is excluded then there is no other material to connect the appellant to the dacoity in question. At this stage, we may also notice that though the Court had framed charges under Section 412 of IPC as against the appellant for being in possession of stolen articles like the lota and glass, the trial Court itself acquitted the appellant of this charge because the very seizure and recovery of glass and the lota have not been proved in the Court. 8. Thus, taking an overall view of the matter, we are unable to uphold the conviction of the appellant and we have to give him the benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances noted above. 9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence, in so far as the appellant is concerned, is set aside. The appellant is freed from the liabilities of his bail bonds. 10. In appreciation of the assistance given by Shri Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, Advocate as amicus curiae and having assisted in the matter competently, in our view, he would be entitled to a hearing fee of Rs 5,000/- to be paid by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.