IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness testimonies, along with the absence of corroborative evidence, can lead to an acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.

1. Learned counsel Mr. Amarnath Jha, appearing for the appellants and learned APP Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, for the State are present and they are heard on the merit of this appeal.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.10.2018 and order of sentence dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-1, Purnea, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 633 of 2006, CIS No. 3612/13, T.R. No. 23/17 arising out of Barhara P.S. Case No. 84 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellant No. 1 has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and the appellant No. 2 and 3 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 and 120B of IPC and sentenced for the said offences.

3. The prosecution’s case in brief is that:-In the midnight of 30.09.2005, it was noticed by the informant that one person had jumped into the courtyard of his house and thereafter, the said person asked his old mother to hand over the key of the main gate and at that time the said person convinced his mother that all the other persons who also stood there, were their known and then, his mother handed over the key to the said person and thereafter, the main gate was opened by the accused and about eight to nine miscreants who were carrying various types of weapons in their hands, entered into the courtyard of his house and at that time he identified the appellant Jagdish Mehta and his two sons namely, Manoj Mehta and Pintu @ Saroj Mehta in the light of a bulb and he saw the appellants from the window of his room and he got himself hidden beneath his Chawki inside his room. The informant further alleged that at the beginning of occurrence the appellant Jagdish Mehta firstly, asked his sons to stop the electricity by removing the main fuse and also asked them to remove the wire of telephone and then his sons followed his instruction and thereafter, the appellant Jagdish Mehta asked his sons to complete their work immediately. The informant further alleged that during the course of occurrence the appellant Manoj Mehta firstly, inquired from his mother about the presence of his brother Anil Kumar Mehta but his mother did not say anything, then, the appellants entered into the room of his brother Anil Kumar Mehta and thereafter, he heard the sound of two firings and after that, at the direction of the appellant Jagdish Mehta, his sons and other miscreants opened the almirahs and suitcases and looted ornaments, clothes and important documents from the house of the informant and at that time the other miscreants were using local dialect and after that, he went into the room of his brother and found him lying in unconscious condition in a pool of blood and there were bleeding injuries at his jaw, wrist of his right hand and chest and then he rushed outside in crying condition and went to his father and untied his hands as the accused had tied his father’s hands and by that time their neighbours gathered at the place of occurrence and then his brother was rushed to Sadar Hospital, Purnea, from where he was referred to Patna Medical College and Hospital for better treatment but during that course his brother was also treated at Koshi Nursing Home, Purnea.

4. The informant recorded his fardbeyan exhibit 4 with the above allegations, on that basis, formal FIR bearing Barhara P.S. Case No. 84 of 2005 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, which set the criminal law in motion.

5. After the completion of investigation, police submitted the chargesheet against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 and 120B of IPC and during the course of investigation, the police failed to trace out and identify the other accused persons who were detailed in the FIR. The