IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that identification procedures must meet strict standards to ensure reliability; failure to do so results in acquittal due to reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

SONI SHRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Mr. Adil Abbas, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of appellants and Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Darbhanga dated 23.12.2003 in S.Tr. No. 67 of 1993 (arising out of Keoti P.S. Case No. 37 of 1992), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

3. The short facts of the case is that the informant gave fardbeyan on 07.05.1992 at about 5:00 a.m. wherein he has alleged that on the last night i.e. the night intervening between 6-7/05/1992, while he was sleeping inside in his house and his son Md. Gafoor was also sleeping along with his wife in his room, there was a knock heard on the door around 12:30 a.m. and his son abused the persons who were knocking on the door. It is further alleged that upon hearing the noise the informant went out in the courtyard and saw the accused persons flashing torches and upon concealing himself, he identified Sukhdeo Khatebe (whose appeal has now abated), Md. Gafoor of district Madhubani and Md. Sayeed Ansari (whose appeal has already been abated), came variously armed with sticks and knife and some of the dacoits were even assaulting his son Md. Gafoor. The informant has alleged that out of fear, he ran out of the house and shouted for help whereafter the villagers including Bhogendra Yadav and Rajendra Yadav, who even fired from his gun and other villagers also assembled. Upon seeing the villagers, the accused persons even exploded a bomb which caused injuries to Nathuni Mansoori (P.W.6). It is further alleged that several articles were looted from the house of the informant and the informant’s son Md. Gafoor was also injured by general assault. The age of the dacoits was assessed to be between 30-40 years and some from 25-30 years. The informant has also stated that some of the dacoits had concealed their identity by covering their faces, however in the light of the torch which was being flashed by the accused persons, he noticed that some of them were fair while some of wheatish complexion and some were even dark. The height of the dacoits also ranged from short, medium to tall persons. The dacoits had been stated to be 14-15 in number and at the end it has been admitted that there was a dispute with accused Md. Gafoor and with regard to purchase of buffalo and despite the fact that it has been compromised, threatening was given by the said Md. Gafoor.

4. On the basis of above mentioned fardbeyan of the informant, Keoti P.S. Case No. 37 of 1992 was registered against six named and other unknown persons. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellants and other accused persons under Section 395 of IPC on 03.11.1992 whereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 17.11.1992. After the case was being committed to the Court of sessions which was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1993, charges against the appellants as also other accused persons was framed on 03.04.1993 under Section 395 of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses in its favour namely, Ram Shankar Sing