Patna High Court
Saryug Mandal & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 27 September, 2012
Author: Sheema Ali Khan
Bench: Sheema Ali Khan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.131 OF 2000
===========================================================
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 30 TH MARCH,
2000 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 31ST MARCH, 2000
PASSED BY SHRI DEO NARAYAN BARAI, 1ST ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, BHAGALPUR IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 213 OF
1983/47 OF 1995 ARISING OUT OF SHAMBHUGANJ POLICE
STATION CASE NO. 68 OF 1982
===========================================================
1. SARYUG MANDAL, SON OF JAI RAM MANDAL OF PARARIYA
POLICE STATION SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA
2. CHANDI MANDAL, SON OF FAGU MANDAL OF KIRANPUR,
POLICE STATION SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA
3. SADANAND MANDAL, SON OF BASANT MANDAL OF BITHI,
POLICE STATION SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA
4. SHARDA MANDAL, SON OF BASANT MANDAL OF BHITHI,
POLICE STATION SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA
5. SAAHENDRA MANDAL, SON OF JAI RAM MANDAL OF
PARARIYA, POLICE STATION SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA
.... .... APPELLANT/S
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S
===========================================================
APPEARANCE :
FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. ANSUL, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT/S : MS. ABHA SINGH, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 27-09-2012
Sheema Ali Khan, J. The appellants have been found guilty by the 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 213
of 1983/47 of 1995. Apart from appellant no. 2, all the
appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years under Section 395 of the Indian
Penal Code, whereas, the appellant no. 2 has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years considering the
fact that he was 65 years old.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Jaldhar
2 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.131 of 2000 dt.27-09-2012
2/4
Mandal was sleeping in his house along with his family
members. It is said that his uncle Mangal Mandal had gone to
village Daliyanpur and there were only female members in his
house. At about 12 in the night, 8 accused persons including the
five appellants entered the house of Mangal Mandal. Bhudeo
Mandal was armed with gun, Sahendra Mandal and Chandi
Mandal had pistols in their hands whereas the others were
armed with lathies. The appellants had committed theft in the
house of the informant. When the informant went to the house
of his uncle, he saw that the miscreants were cutting legs of
Indra Devi. Sanjukta Devi, daughter of Indra Devi had identified
the accused persons. After committing theft in the house of
Mangal Mandal, the appellants ran away. The informant raised
alarm whereupon the villagers gathered at the place of
occurrence. The reason for the occurrence has been disclosed in
the First Information Report which indicates that the miscreants
have entered the house of Mangal Mandal in order to kill him. It
is said that there are cases pending between Saryug Mandal and
one Lekha Mandal. The informant's uncle supports Lekha
Mandal which is the reason why the accused Saryug Mandal
was aggrieved and had come to kill Mangal Mandal.
3. The defence of the appellants which has come by
way of suggestions given during the trial of this case is that they
have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and that
they were not responsible for the said dacoity or for the injury on
any of the family members of the informant.
3 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.131 of 2000 dt.27-09-2012
3/4
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has
examined five witnesses. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer
and the doctor has not been examined in this case on behalf of
the prosecution who could have proved the injury of PW 5. PW 3
Jaldhar Mandal, PW 4 Kaili Devi, wife of Mangal mandal and PW
5 Indira Devi have been declared hostile.
5. PW 3 Jaldhar Mandal is the informant of this
case. He has supported the factum of dacoity in his evidence
before the Trial Court but has not identified the appellants as
the persons who committed dacoity. Thus, this case is based on
the sole testimony of PW 1 Arbind Kumar Mandal, who is the
nephew of the informant Jaldhar Mandal. According to him, he
was sleeping in the verandah of his house when he heard the
ladies of the house protesting. When he went inside, he was able
to identify all the accused persons committing act of dacoity. He
was able to identify them in the light of the torch that the
dacoits were carrying. He also admits that all the appellants are
resident of the same village. In his cross-examination, he deied
the motive of the occurrence as stated in the First Information
Report and has stated that he does not know Lekha Mandal nor
does he know whether Saryug Mandal and Lekha Mandal are on
litigating terms. He also denies that there is a land dispute
pending between the parties.
6. PW 2 Sanjukta Devi, sister of PW 1 Arbind Kumar
Mandal has supported the prosecution case only to the extent
that she states that the dacoity had taken place in the night of
4 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.131 of 2000 dt.27-09-2012
4/4
25.09.1982, but she does not identify the appellants as the persons who were responsible for the dacoity.
7. The Trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of the sole testimony of PW 1. Considering the fact that the informant and the victim persons of this case have all turned hostile and have denied the participation of these appellants in the occurrence, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was a dacoity committed in the house of Jaldhar Mandal, but it cannot be said that these appellants had participated in the said occurrence. It is not safe for this Court to convict the appellants on the sole testimony of PW 1, who claims to have identified the appellants considering that they belong to the same village and that they had taken no precaution to cover up their faces while they have come to commit dacoity.
8. In the facts aforesaid, the above named appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case.
9. In the result, this appeal is allowed.
(Sheema Ali Khan, J) Prabhakar Anand/-