Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 1253, 1263, 1343 of 2008
(21.6.2023)
Shankar Roy & Ors. (in 1253)
Moti Mandal (in 1263)
Ishwar Yadav (in 1343) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in all)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 396 & 397 – The appellants alleged to have losted valuable at several houses and also murdered Kishan Yadav by exploding bomb – the informant claims to have read the fardbeyan and put his signature – in view of his specific deposition that he had not attended any school and was not able to read and was thus illiterate, casts a serious doubt on the varacity of the fardbeyan which is the basis for registration of the FIR – Rusho Yadav whose house has been described as the second place of occurrence does not appear to be an eye witness and he has not supported the prosecution case – it is peculiar that the fardbeyan contains the names and addresses of all the accussed persons, who were not the co-villagers of the informant – the first version of the information, which the I.O. had received, is not there on record – what information was actually received and from whom, which has required the SHO to proceed for the hospital at the first instance is a fact which is crucial and goes to the root of the matter as the prosecution suppressed to initial version of the occurrece as reported to the police and the contents of the fardbeyan have not been proved rather become doubtful, in view of the deposition of the informant (PW9) and witness to the fardbeyan (PW5), the case of the prosecution comes under shadow of doubt – appellants have to be given benefit of doubt – appellants acquitted – conviction and sentence set aside – appeals allowed. (Paras 15, 17, 21, 24 & 25)
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—Since all these appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short CrPC), arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order.
2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2008/ 01.10.2008 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Case No. 1018 of 2005, arising out of Katoria P.S. Case No. 53 of 2004, GR No. 481 of 2004, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:—
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1253 (DB) of 2008
| Appellant's name | Conviction under Section | Imprisonment | Sentence Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine |
| 1. Shankar Roy | 396 of the IPC | RI For Life | X | X |
| 397 of the IPC | RI for 7 years | X | X | |
| 2. Shambhu Roy | 396 of the IPC | RI For Life | X | X |
| 397 of the IPC | RI for 7 years | X | X | |
| 3. Arun Mandal | 396 of the IPC | RI For Life | X | X |
| 397 of the IPC | RI for 7 years | X | X | |
| 4. Nourangi Mandal | 396 of the IPC | RI For Life | X | X |
| 397 of the IPC | RI for 7 years | X | X |
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1263 (DB) of 2008
| Appellant's name | Conviction under Section | Imprisonment | Sentence Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine |
| Moti Mandal | 396 of the IPC | RI For Life | X | X |
| 397 of the IPC | RI for 7 years | X | X |
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1343 (DB) of 2008
| Appellant's name | Conviction under Section | Imprisonment | Sentence Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine |
| Ishwar Yadav | 396 of the IPC | RI For Life | X | X |
| 397 of the IPC | RI for 7 years | X | X |
3. PW-9 is the informant, whose fardbeyan recorded by the police on 22.05.2004 at 7:00 AM, is the basis for registration of the concerned Katoria P.S. Case No. 53 of 2004. The said fardbeyan bears the signature of the informant and his brother Akhilesh Yadav (PW-5).
4. According to the fardbeyan, the informant's son was married on 20.05.2004 and the baraat party had returned on 21.05.2004 in the morning. At about 12:00 in the night, when the females in the family were singing folk songs, 20-25 criminals entered into his house where a petromax was lighted in the courtyard. He saw accused Nilkanth Mandal, son of Chhedi Mandal, Naresh Mandal, son of Janki Mandal, Nourangi Mandal, son of Mohan Mandal, Doman Mandal @ Amik Mandal, son of Mahendra Mandal, Ayodhi Das, son of Pocho Das, Jaldhar Das, son of Pitho Das, Manohar Mandal, son of late Bulaki Mandal, Mukesh Mandal, son of Jageshwar Mandal, Moti Mandal, son of late Mandu Mandal, Arun Mandal, son of Jageshwar Mandal, Ravindra Mandal, son of late Chhedi Mandal, Nandu Mandal, son of Janki Mandal, Govind Das, son of Madhu Das, all residents of village Ghaghari Jore; Kuldeep Roy, son of not known, Shambhu Roy, son of Sahdeo Roy, Ugan Roy, son of Sildhar Roy, Shankar Roy, son of late Sibu Roy of village Kaithatikar; Ishwar Yadav, son of Nanhku Yadav of village Malbehri who surrounded his house and started hurling abuses. They were asking the informant and others to hand over to them all the valuables. When the informant (PW-9) and his brother Akhilesh Yadav (PW-5) protested, one of the miscreants assaulted his father on his face, left hand and right thigh with a sharp cutting weapon. The criminals assaulted Arjun Yadav (not examined) and the informant also. In the meanwhile, word spread that some occurrence of loot had taken place in the house of Dhokal Yadav (PW-1) also. The miscreants, according to the fardbeyan, took away with them jewelleries of the female inmates of the informant's house. He further alleged that the criminals thereafter went to the house of one Kishan Yadav, whereafter Kishan Yadav started raising alarm. In the meanwhile, three miscreants, namely, Nilkanth Mandal, Ishwar Yadav and Naresh Mandal rushed towards Kishan. Kishan Mandal is said to have exclaimed
A conviction under Section 394 IPC requires evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is compromised by significant procedural lapses and inconsistencies in witness statements.
Conviction requires consistent evidence; inconsistencies and contradictions raise reasonable doubt regarding guilt.
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 under IPC Sections 364(A) and 395 reversed due to witness inconsistencies and insufficient evidence of identity and guilt.
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
