Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Alok Kumar Pandey, J.
Haresh Yadav – Appellant
versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2304 of 2023
Decided on 22.8.2025
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(i)(xi) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 324, 307 and 452 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Hurt, attempt to murder and house trespass – Conviction and sentence – In FIR, name of appellant has not been mentioned and physical features of appellant has not been reflected – There were no identifying features provided regarding four accused persons – Though there are presence of four accused persons who made entry into house of informant, informant has not identified any of other three miscreants and he has also not pointed out physical features though, he is claiming that he has identified appellant through light of torch – Evidence of informant is quite shaky with regard to identification of appellant – Informant has not whispered about source from where he came to know about name of appellant – Omission of denoting physical features of any of accused persons who are perpetrators of crime clearly indicates that there was no light – Dock identification has no meaning at all where Investigating Officer has not been examined and TIP is not available on record – Dock identification by few witnesses is not reliable – It is cardinal principle of criminal justice system that prosecution has to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt – These are the basic flaws in identifying appellant – On the point of identification, prosecution has measurably failed to prove case against appellant – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence hereby set aside. (Paras 20, 23, 26, 29,
34, 35, 36 and 37)
Result: Appeal allowed. Appellant acquitted.
JUDGMENT (ORAL )
Heard the parties.
2. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.03.2023 and order of sentence dated 05.04.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge-I cum Special Judge SC/ST (P.O.A) Act, Buxar, in SC/ST case no. 173/2021, arising out of Brahmpur (Krishna Brahm) P.S. case no. 84/2003 whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307, 452 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (P.O.A) Act and has been sentenced to undergo seven years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five Thousand) under Section 307 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, appellant will have to suffer additional imprisonment for six months. Appellant has further been sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for four years alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) under Section 452 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, appellant will have to suffer additional imprisonment of four months. Appellant has further been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/-(Two Thousand) under Section 27 of Arms Act and in case of default of payment of fine, appellant will have to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. Appellant has further been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of two years alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) under Section 3 (i) (xi) of SC/ST (P.O.A) Act and in default of payment of fine, the appellant will have to suffer additional imprisonment of two months. The learned trial court ordered that all the sentenced shall run concurrently except the default sentences.
3. As per prosecution case, informant has narrated the story that while he was sleeping alongwith his family in the intervening night of 25/26.05.2003 near about 12:30 AM, he woke up and saw 3 – 4 persons entered in the house of informant. When informant asked them about their identity, they asked the informant to remain silent and go to sleep, as a result of which informant got afraid. In the meanwhile, informant’s wife woke up after hearing the noise and she also enquired about the persons. It is alleged that informant identified one person as younger son of late Naga Yadav of Lalee Ke Dera (Soa) village but informant does not know the name of the said person. It is further alleged that when the informant turned on the torch, he identified the face of the said person but he did not know the name of the said person and the said miscreant fired bullet which hit upon arm and chest of informant’s wife and blood started oozing out. It is further alleged that informant was also hit by bullet in his left arm and blood started oozing out.
4. On the basis of fardebayan of informant (P.W.2), Brahmpur (Krishna brahm) P.S. Case No. 84 of 2003 has been instituted under Section 324, 448, 307, 34 of IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against younger son of late Naga Yadav of village – Soa, Lalee Ke Dera (appellant herein). During the course of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant under Sections 452, 324, 307, 34 of IPC and 27 of the Arms Act alongwith Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act and cognizance has been taken under the aforesaid sections. Charge has been framed on 04.08.2006 against the appellant under Sections 324, 307, 452, of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act. Thereafter the charges have been read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home guilt of accused person, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses as P.W. 1- Sunita Devi (wife of informant/injured witness), P.W. 2- Binod Kumar Ram (informant), P.W.3- Vishwanath Ram, P.W.4- Virendra Ram, P.W.5- Ramesh kumar Ram, P.W.6- Ram Kripal Mahto (Investigating offi
Hurt, attempt to murder and house trespass – Dock identification has no meaning at all where Investigating Officer has not been examined and TIP is not available on record – Dock identification by fe....
The prosecution must establish the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; weak witness identification leads to acquittal.
The court clarified that identification procedures must meet strict standards to ensure reliability; failure to do so results in acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
Conviction for dacoity was overturned due to significant evidentiary inconsistencies, including lack of reliable identification and failure to examine critical witnesses.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper identification in court and the need for reliable and untampered evidence in criminal cases.
Failure of prosecution to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt due to inordinate delay in FIR and weak identification evidence.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
