JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that out of six appellants, the appellant No.1 Rajendra Prasad @ Sao and appellant No.3 Dadan Prasad have been died during the pendency of this appeal and their appeal has been abated in vide order dated 13th February 2025. 2. A separate case was filed on behalf of appellant Rajendra Prasad (In Criminal Appeal (SJ) 252 of 2007) who has also been died and the appeal filed on behalf of him also stands abated vide order dated 22.11.2019. 3. Heard Mr. K.K. Mishra learned counsel for alive appellants as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 18.01.2006 and 19.01.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Latehar in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2003 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 47 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 307 /34, 452/34 and 380/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 /34; R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each and for the offence under Section 4 52 /34; R.I. for 05 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and for the offence under Section 380 /34 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. Factual Matrix 5. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 04.05.2001 at about 08:30 pm informant was teaching her children meanwhile Rajendra Prasad @ Sao, Pradip Kumar, Sandip Kumar, Tara Devi, Urmila Devi and one another break open and entered into her house by opening the grill gate. It is further alleged that at the present accused persons were armed with guns, pistol and opened one fire just entering into the house. It is alleged that Rajendra Sao (deceased appellant) started pressing the neck of the informant with intention to kill and robbed her belongings and when informant raised alarm meanwhile Tara Devi, Urmila Devi, Rajendra Prasad and Dadan Sao started breaking upon the Godrej Almirah and put robbed her ornaments, clothes, cash and kitchen utensils and by putting in a bag, fled away. 6. 6. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Sections 34 1, 342, 307, 452, 380, 504, 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 34 1, 342, 307, 452, 380, 504, 34 of the I.P.C. Further, after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the charges were framed under Section 307 /34, 452/34, 380/34 of the I.P.C. The charges were read-over and explained to accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order was passed which has been assailed in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned trial court has miserably failed to consider the medical examination report of the victim-informant which does not attract the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The circumstances under which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place are very general and vague terms. It is alleged that the accused persons have broke open the Almirah and also plundered jewelleries and other household articles, but neither the broken Almirah nor any stolen material have been recovered and seized in this case. Although, some of the witnesses have specifically stated that when the police arrived at the place of occurrence, the accused persons were also present. The appellants or in-laws and other family members of the deceased husband of the informant. The informant was also residing in a room provided to her after the death of her husband, but she has some anguish for partition of property and allotment of share of her husband and also claiming some portion of house which was exclusively belonging to the appellants and there was no jointness with the deceased husband of her. In order to vindicate subsisting rights, the informant had instituted several civil cases against the in-laws and other appellants. In most of the cases, the appellants have been acquitted. Therefore, the informant has a tendency to institute several cases purposely to harass and humiliate the appellants with a view to yield on her desire. In order to vindicate subsisting rights, the informant had instituted several civil cases against the in-laws and other appellants. In most of the cases, the appellants have been acquitted. Therefore, the informant has a tendency to institute several cases purposely to harass and humiliate the appellants with a view to yield on her desire. None of the charges were conclusively proved by the prosecution against the appellants, but the learned trial court by taking a sympathetical view in favour of the informant (a widow woman) has held the appellants guilty which is not justified under law. The investigating Officer of the case has not been examined which has caused great prejudice in the defence of the appellants. In the alternative, it is pleaded that it was the first offence of the appellants and in facts and circumstances of the case, at least benefit of Section 4 Probation Offenders Act might be given to the appellants by the learned trial court which has been declined without recording any special reasons, the appellants are also entitled for the said provision. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently refuted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly apprised and appreciated the evidences available on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court and there is no valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the record of the case in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties and also perused the impugned judgment and order. 10. On behalf of prosecution altogether 12 witnesses have been examined and also adduced following exhibits:- Exhibit Number Description Exhibit-1 Written report of the informant Exhibit-2 Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-3 Registration on the back of written report Exhibit-4 Case diary Exhibit-5 Service report on the back of summons of the witness Kapil Khan Exhibit-6 C.C. of sale deed No. 19/69 Exhibit-7 Certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Lathar Exhibit-8 C.C. of plaint of Partition Suit No. 07 of 2001 of the court of the Sub-Judge, Latehar Exhibit-9 to 9/2 Three rent receipts 11. It appears that altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them P.W.1 (Mahendra Prasad), P.W.3 (Bihari Prasad), and P.W.5 (Kailash Ram), P.W. 8 (Laxman Ram) and P.W.10 (Sanjay Agarwal) were declared hostile by the prosecution and even denied the statement before police during the course of investigation. 12. The most important witness of fact is the informant (Sabita Sahu) herself who has been examined as P.W.7. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence at about 08:30 PM, she was sitting in her courtyard and teaching her children meanwhile all the above named accused persons entered in her house. It is alleged that Rajendra Prasad @ Sao was having pistol did one fire and ordered to kill her and to loot her property, then other accused persons namely Pradeep Kumar and Sandeep Kumar laid down this witness on earth and Rajendra Prasad @ Sao started pressing her neck. Tara Devi was carrying a big plastic bag and Urmila Devi and Dadan Sao were armed with danda who broke open the Godrej Almirah and suitcase and looted away ornaments, cash and other household utensils, cheque book, pass-book and other documents also of her deceased husband. She has further deposed that she informed the occurrence to Latehar, Police Station which is marked as Exhibit-1. In her cross- examination, this witness admits that she has filed a criminal case against the above name accused persons at Gumla, Civil Court. There were other cases also lodged by this witness against her mother-in-law, father-in-law which were compromised. Her husband died unnatural death for which UD Case No. 08/1997 was also lodged. Admittedly, she has sustained no injury at all rather allegation of pressing neck was against Rajendra Prasad Sao (deceased appellant) who has been died. So far, rest of the appellants are concerned, no specific overt act has been attributed against them. P.W.2 Suraj Prasad has claimed to went to the house of the informant (Sabita Sahu), after hearing hulla and accused Rajendra Prasad @ Sao was threatening to local villagers also to be intervened into the scuffle. So far, rest of the appellants are concerned, no specific overt act has been attributed against them. P.W.2 Suraj Prasad has claimed to went to the house of the informant (Sabita Sahu), after hearing hulla and accused Rajendra Prasad @ Sao was threatening to local villagers also to be intervened into the scuffle. P.W.4 Shyam Dev Singh has simply stated that he heard noise coming from the house of informant (Sabita Sahu) and went there and came to know that while she was teaching her children meanwhile, 04 to 05 accused persons started threatening her and this witness was also threatened by the accused persons, then he ran away. P.W.6 Chamni Devi also heard the sound of firing and came out from her house and saw that Rajendra Prasad @ Sao having pistol, Sandeep Prasad armed with dagger, Tara devi having plastic bag along with other accused persons came out from the house of the informant. She came to know from the informant that she was threatened and her household articles, jewelleries and other valuables were looted by the accused persons. In para 15, she has stated that she can see even less with her eyes and she identified few persons and also not identified too many people. P.W.9 Sunil Kumar was returning from his Polytechnic Institute, Latehar to his house then he heard loud sound of firing and saw that Sabita Sahu along with her children walking in haste on the road. Then, on asking, she replied nothing, but proceeded forward and went to police station. Thereafter, this witness along with others proceeded towards the house of Sabita Sahu and saw the accused persons Rajendra Prasad @ Sao and Pradeep Kumar along with other 04 to 05 associates were inside the grilled gate house of Sabita Sahu and abusing the police party. Thereafter, he saw that one bag full of items was being taken away from the house of Sabita Sahu. Thereafter, he returned to his own house. P.W.11 Manoj Kumar Gupta is an advocate clerk is a formal witness and proved the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-2. Defence has not examined any witness but some documentary evidences have been adduced:- Exhibit A & A/1- Two letters written by Sunil Kumar. Exhibit A/2- C.C. of Judgment of G.R. No. 139/93. Exhibit-A/3-C.C. of Judgment S.T.-554/98 Exhibit-B- C.C. of order sheet of Misc. Case No. 376/2000. Defence has not examined any witness but some documentary evidences have been adduced:- Exhibit A & A/1- Two letters written by Sunil Kumar. Exhibit A/2- C.C. of Judgment of G.R. No. 139/93. Exhibit-A/3-C.C. of Judgment S.T.-554/98 Exhibit-B- C.C. of order sheet of Misc. Case No. 376/2000. Exhibit-B/1-C.C. of order sheet of M. Case No. 3/93. Exhibit-B/2- C.C. of order sheet of G.R.-46/01 Exhibit-B/3 C.C. of order Sheet of Cr.Misc No. 2560/01 of Jharkhand High Court. Exhibit-B/4- C.C. of order Sheet of G.R. 175/01 Exhibit-B/5- C.C. of order-sheet of G.R. 344/2000. Exhibit-B/6- C.C. of C-06/01 order-sheet. Exhibit-B/7- C.C. G.R.-426/2001 order-sheet. Exhibit-B/8- C.C. of order-sheet of C-10/02. Exhibit-B/9- C.C. of order-sheet of S.T. 554/98. Exhibit-B/10- C.C. of order sheet of Succ.Case No.19/2000. Exhibit-B/11- C.C. of order sheet of P.S.-07/01. Exhibit-B/12- C.C. of order Sheet of C-39/97. Exhibit-C- C.C. of deposition of G.R.-253/01 Exhibit-C/1- C.C. of deposition of G.R.-46/01. Exhibit-C/2- C.C. of deposition of Succ. Case No. 115/04. Exhibit-C/3- C.C. of deposition of S.T.-554/98. Exhibit-D- C.C. of plaint of Succ. Case No. 19/2000. Exhibit-D/1- C.C. of plaint of P.S. 7/2001. Exhibit-D/2- C.C. of written statement in P.S. 7/2001. Exhibit-D/3- C.C. Complaint Petition of C-39/97. Exhibit-D/4 C.C. of petition in Case No. 253/2001. Exhibit-D/5- C.C. of plaint of matrimonial case no.12/92. Exhibit-D/6- C.C. of Complain petition no. 06/2001. Exhibit- D/7-C.C. of petition in C-06/2001. Exhibit-D/8- C.C. of complain petition of C-10/2002. Exhibit- D/9- C.C. of petition in G.R. 344/2000. Exhibit-D/10- C.C. of petition in G.R.-426/2001. Exhibit-D/11-C.C. of petition in C-10/2002. Exhibit-E- C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R. 52/91. Exhibit-E/1-C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R.-137/2004. Exhibit-E/2 C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R.-428/01. Exhibit-E/3 C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R. No. 344/2000. Exhibit-E/4- C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R.-46/01. Exhibit-E/5- C.O. of F.I.R. of G.R.-139/93. Exhibit-E-6- C.C. of S.T. 554/98. Exhibit-E-7- C.C. of charge-sheet of G.R.-137/04. Exhibit E-8- C.C. of charge-sheet of G.R. 426/01. Exhibit-E/9 C.C. of charge-sheet of G.R. 344/2000. Exhibit-F- C.C. of charge-sheet of G.R.-46/2001. Exhibit-G- Sale deed original No. 7610. Exhibit-H- Original Panchnama. Exhibit-H/1- Original suicidal letter of Mahendra Prasad. Exhibit-I- C.C. of U.D.- Case No. 08/97. Exhibit-J- C.C. of Misc. Case No. 376/2000. Exhibit-K- C.C. of compromise petition in G.R. 46/01. Exhibit-B/13- C.C. of order sheet of G.R. 235/2005. Exhibit-E/10- C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R.253/2005. Exhibit-F- C.C. of charge-sheet of G.R.-46/2001. Exhibit-G- Sale deed original No. 7610. Exhibit-H- Original Panchnama. Exhibit-H/1- Original suicidal letter of Mahendra Prasad. Exhibit-I- C.C. of U.D.- Case No. 08/97. Exhibit-J- C.C. of Misc. Case No. 376/2000. Exhibit-K- C.C. of compromise petition in G.R. 46/01. Exhibit-B/13- C.C. of order sheet of G.R. 235/2005. Exhibit-E/10- C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R.253/2005. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants, it shows that the present appellants are mother-in-law, father- in-law and other relatives of the husband of Sabita Sahu (informant) who are under litigating terms prior to this occurrence and instantly present case has been lodged against them. In earlier cases, compromise petitions were also filed and Panchayati was also held to settle the dispute regarding the landed property. 13. The overall consideration of oral as well as documentary evidences led by the parties, it is crystal clear that no specific or overt act has been attributed against any of the appellants except some general and omnibus allegations of commission of theft and pressing neck of the informant. Although, she has not gone under any medical examination. On the basis of bald testimony of informant, a case under Section 307 of the I.P.C. cannot be assumed to be constituted. Particularly, when none of the independent witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story and even not seen the occurrence and the informant has animus to falsely implicate the appellants due to previous litigating terms and dispute of property. These glaring facts, although have been noticed by the learned trial court and specifically mentioned in the judgment itself, but not appreciated and no weightage was given to the defence evidence. The learned trial court has assumed the prosecution as gospel truth because the case was lodged by a widow lady who happens to be the wife of deceased family member of the appellants. It appears that the whole prosecution story has been exaggerated with a view to wreck vengeance against the appellants. The investigating officer has also not examined nor have any stolen articles been seized and recovered in this case. The description of any gold ornaments and even the denomination of currency notes which were alleged to be looted has neither been mentioned in the testimony of P.W.7 (Informant). The investigating officer has also not examined nor have any stolen articles been seized and recovered in this case. The description of any gold ornaments and even the denomination of currency notes which were alleged to be looted has neither been mentioned in the testimony of P.W.7 (Informant). It appears that the learned trial court has failed to properly consider the true tenor of the available on record and fell into error while appreciating the evidence and wrongly concluded about the guilt of the appellants. 14. In view of above discussion and reasons, I find merits in this appeal, therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside and this appeal is allowed. 15. Appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also be discharged. 16. I.A. if any stands disposed of. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be send back to the court concerned for information and needful.