Back
1990 Supreme(Pat) 300
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.H.S.Abidi, J.
Bishnanath Yadav
Versus
State Of Bihar
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 178(S) of 1983 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 11, 1990
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Any latches or irregularities in the investigation or prosecution of the case may prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial and entitle them to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - NON-EXAMINATION OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER - EFFECT ON PROSECUTION CASE - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted for dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with others, entered the informant's house, assaulted him, and looted valuables. The appellants denied the allegations and claimed false implication due to previous enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and that the Investigating Officer was not examined. The court also noted that the Investigating Officer was allegedly colluding with the accused and that he had not taken interest in the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer prejudiced the appellants' case? 2. Whether the appellants were falsely implicated due to previous enmity?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer were serious matters that prejudiced the appellants' case. The court noted that the Investigating Officer was responsible for many latches, including the delay in recording the FIR and the failure to appear in court. The court held that these latches deprived the appellants of the opportunity to get material about objective findings, the complicity of one of the appellants, and the identification of the appellants. 2. The court found that there was evidence of previous enmity between the appellants and the informant. However, the court held that this enmity alone was not sufficient to discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The court noted that the prosecution witnesses had withstood the test of cross-examination and that their evidence was consistent.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellants' convictions and sentences, and discharged them from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
S.H.S. Abidi, J.
1. The appellauts have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16-9-1985 passed by the Ist. Assistant Sessions Judge saharsa in Sessions Trial No.45 of 1977 by which they have been convicted under Sec.395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 17-12-1971 at about 8.30 p. M. while the informant Roop Narain jha (P W.10) was washing his hands and mouth after taking food, he saw five dacoits entering into the house, two of whom moved forward and came to the Angan where the informant was and one of them, gave a blow of split-bamboo on his back and other dacoits assaulted him with lathi on his buttock. The informant himself had a Two-Cell torch in his hand in the light of which, he had clearly identified the dacolts who were Badri Yadav, Jogi Yadav, Mohiuddin iviian and Yusuf mian, all residents of the informants village. He had also Identified Mahgu yadav of village Dight of Murliganj police Station. He has alleged that appellant Yusuf Mian hit him on his left hand with lathi and asked the informant to switch off the torch According to him appellant Mahgu Yadav gave lathi blow in his stomach, Mohiuddln Mian and Jogi Yadav caught hold of him and took him to a room and asked him to lie down on the chouki silrently which was heaitated by the informant on which the informaat got the informant lie down after catching and pressing his neck. The informants wife was also in the same room from before who on the order of the dacoits, handed over the key to them, It is alleged that after some time 2 to 3 dacoiss farther entered into that room and broke open the box kept in that room and took out ornaments, cash, utensils, clothes etc. It has also been alleged that one of the dacoits who came later, had tire-arm, like pistol, and showed it to the informant and asked him to cover up his face otherwise he would shoot him. It is said that on hulla, informants mother also came into that room. The informant furiher alleged that after taking out goods from that room the dacoits went out of that room and closed it by a bundle from out side and also entered into another room and also looted away all the goods ot that room. After getting an opportunity, he opened the door of the room as the handle of out-side was loose and went out ot the House from its back door and raised hulla. He also heard the noise of cracker at the door of his house. According to the F. I. R. (Exu 4) the informant awoke some villagers who raised hulla on which the dacoits fled away towards south west of the village, on the basis of the said First Information Report, (Ext.4) the investigation of the case was taken up by Ramakaut Jha who has not been examined.
3. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet showing accused appellant Tarni Mandal, Parmanand Poddar and Sami Ahmad as seat up tor trial and the other accused persons were shown not sent up for trial on which, the informant being dibgusted with the police investigation, filed petition before the D. I. G. of Police on whose instance further investigation of the case was taken up on which again on 6-5-1976, another supplementary charge sheet was submitted in the court.
4. The trial of Tatni Mandal, Parmanand Poddar and Sami Ahmad was separated as they were said to have absconded,
5. In defence, the appellants have denied the allegations levelled against them by saying that they were falsely implicated in the case on account of previous enmity. No witness has been examined in defence.
6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined fourteen witnesses, namely, Rami Sao and Bichu Sah, P. Ws.1 and 2 who are heaisay witnesses. Bipin Bihari Verma, P. W.3 is a formal witness saying that he knew the writings of Ramakant Jha on the FIR who was still in service. P. W.4 Anirudh mandal has turned hostile and P. W.5 Priyabrat Yadav has been tendered. PWs 6,7 and 8 namely, Hridaya Narai
