Patna High Court
Baldeo Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 26 November, 2013
Author: Anjana Prakash
Bench: Anjana Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 226 of 2002
========================================================
Baldeo Paswan, S/o late Saryug Paswan, Resident of Village-Bhalha,
P.S. Bathanaha, District-Sitamarhi.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Respondent/s
========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Maonj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kanti Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Z. Hoda, APP.
========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 26-11-2013
Anjana Prakash, J.1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Sitamarhi in S.Tr. No. 80 of 1996 by judgment and order dated 11.04.2002.
2. The case of the Informant is that on the night of 02.10.1995 a dacoity was committed in his house by 5-6 miscreants who fled away after having taken away the house-hold articles. In this transaction the Appellant was identified by his wife.
3. The Defence of the Appellant was that he has been implicated on account of land dispute between the father-in-law of the informant and himself.
4. During trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom P.W. 6 is the informant. He Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.226 of 2002 dt.26-11-2013 2 submitted in his evidence in Court about the factum of the dacoity in his house but exaggerated the prosecution case on the point of identification that he had also identified the Appellant in the transaction. P.W. 1 the wife of the informant also supported the factum of dacoity and named the Appellant as one of the dacoits and she was cross-examined on the point that her father had enmity with the Appellant. P.W. 2 is the son of the Informant who also supports the factum of dacoity and that he had identified the Appellant in course of the dacoity. P.W. 3 stated that he reached the place of occurrence on alarm having been raised by the informant and others and saw the dacoits out of which he identified the Appellant as well. P.W. 4 is the inmate of the house but does not say anything about the identification. P.W. 5, Ramkewal Singh stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence on alarm and identified the Appellant as one of the dacoits. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer who found the objective evidence with regard to the factum of dacoity and thus corroborated the prosecution to that extent.
5. However, on going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that initially the story with regard to identification of the Appellant was only by the wife of the Informant but later on it was developed to the extent Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.226 of 2002 dt.26-11-2013 3 that all the witnesses who came on alarm had identified the Appellant. How the Appellant who was a resident of another village was known is not disclosed. Under these circumstances, when the Appellant was identified by the sole witness i.e. the wife of the Informant whose father was on inimical terms with the Appellant it would be unsafe to rely upon the sole eye-witness on the point of identification.
6. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant on 11.04.2002 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Sitamarhi in S.Tr. No. 80 of 1996 is set aside. The Appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bonds.
(Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 26th November, 2013 NAFR/Vikash/-