The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide reliable and solid evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, highlighting the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases.

1. The revision application has been directed against the order dated 3/06/1999 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Ciminal Appeals Nos. 20 of 1995 and 21 of 1995, whereby he dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners and others. The petitioners were convicted for the offence under Sec. 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.

2. The facts relevant to the present revision application are that on 24-10-1985 at about 6.15 a.m. the S.I. S.N. Ojha, posted at R.P.F. Post, Katihar, got an information that shunter and fireman of Engine No. 4363-YG was selling coal from the engine towards, Mansahi Railway Crossing Gate of Gosala, so, he rushed towards engine along with S.I. Amar Deo Singh and constable Bashishtha Narain Jha and noticed that engine crew was keeping one basket on the head of a lady from Engine No. 4363-YG. So, the lady was chased by them but she managed to escape throwing the basket, containing raw coal, by the side of the railway track. The complaintant identified that lady who was Atwaria of Gosala. Meanwhile, the constable Ramayan Choubey also arrived there is to assist the raiding party. The complainant noticed that huge quantity of raw coal was kept by the side of the railway crossing gate and three persons were sitting there who fled away seeing the R.P.F. men. They could not be apprehended even after chase. Those persons were identified by S.I. Amar Deo Singh and constable Ramayan Choubey and they were Kishori Lal, Parikshan Mahto and Chhedi Sah who are not the petitioners here. The complainant with the help of other R.P.F. personnel extinguished the fire and seized 167 Kg. of raw coal. The complainant also seized raw coal left by the lady weighing about 36 Kg. The seizure lists were prepared and brought to R.P.F. post Katihar where the complainant submitted written complaint to the Officer Incharge R.P.F. post Katihar, (West). After completing the enquiry, the Officer Incharge R.P.F. post, Katihar submitted prosecution report against the petitioners as well as Kishori Lal, Parikshan and Chhedi. The petitioners along with Atwaria were charged under Sec. 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act to which they pleaded not guilty.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there has been miscarriage of justice in the present case, inasmuch, as without any positive evidence the petitioners who are railway employees have been convicted by the trial Court and the judgment of the trial Court has been confirmed by the appellate Court. As such, reappraisal of the evidence is necessary for dispensing justice in the case.

4. The learned counsel pointed out that so far the petitioners are concerned the allegations against them are that they kept a basket ont he head of Atwaria which contained 36 Kg. of raw coal and, on chase, Atwaria fled away throwing the basket on the ground and the complaianant seized 36 Kg. of coal from the ground near railway track of Gosala which was seized by the complainant and he prepared the seizure list (Ext. 1/1). As such, nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioners who are said to be the members of the crew of Engine No. 4363 YG. There is no charge of abetment against the petitioners. Hence, on this score, the conviction of the petitioners under Sec. 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act is liable to be set aside.

5. It was next submitted that there is no authentic or reliable evidence on the record which may establish that the petitioners were the members of the crew of Engine No. 4363 YG at the relevant time and the Enquiry Officer also failed to establish this fact in course of his enquiry and on hearsay, the petitioners were prosecuted by him. In this connection it was pointed out that the petitioners were not named in the complaint which was filed by S.I. S.N. Ojha (PW 5). PW 5 did not also name the petitioners in his evidence that the petitioners were the members of the crew. PW 5 has no wher