Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.
Karar Mian S/o Dil Mohammad Mian – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 522, 546, 547 of 2010
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Dacoity - Indian Penal Code - Section 395 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to prove the possession of stolen property by the accused. The judgment highlighted the importance of examining the investigating officer to establish the occurrence and non-recovery of looted articles. The court set aside the conviction and sentence, citing prior enmity, non-examination of the investigating officer, and lack of recovery of looted articles.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution was based on a dacoity incident in the house of the informant, where the appellants were convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The defense argued that the case was based on prior land dispute and enmity, and no dacoity had taken place. The defense presented evidence of prior enmity and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prior enmity between the parties, non-examination of the investigating officer, and lack of recovery of looted articles raised doubt in the prosecution's case. The court noted inconsistencies in the informant's testimony and the absence of evidence to prove the possession of stolen property by the accused.
Issues: The key issues included the presence of prior enmity, the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, and the lack of examination of the investigating officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to establish the possession of stolen property by the accused, the significance of examining the investigating officer, and the presence of prior enmity between the parties.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, discharging them from the liability of their respective bail bond, and allowed all three appeals.
JUDGMENT :
RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Gopal K. Sinha, the learned counsel appears for the appellants in these cases and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 546 of 2010 and Mrs. Vandana Bharti in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 522 of 2010 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 547 of 2010, the learned APPs, for the State of Jharkhand.
2. These criminal appeals are preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 11th June 2010 and the order of sentence dated 19th June 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Garhwa in S.T. Case No. 392 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants were convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and any period already undergone by the appellants was ordered to be set off.
3. The prosecution case was initiated on the basis of the fardbeyan dated 16.05.1994 of the informant PW-3 Rameshwar Shukla of village Kharaundha, P.S. Manjhiaon, recorded by A.S.I. Baliram Singh at Kandi O.P. on 16.05.1994 at 09:00 a.m. The informant had stated in the fardbeyan that in the night of 15.05.1994, he along with his brothers Shambhu Nath Shukla (PW-6), Tarkeshwar Nath, Bhola Nath (PW-11) and children were sleeping on a cot in front of the main door of his house and due to hot weather he was not completely asleep. Informant further stated that at about 11.00 p.m., he saw 20-22 persons approaching them by katcha path from south west direction. They came near the informant very fast and started flashing torch. Informant identified Binod Ojha, Kamlesh Ojha, Kara Mian, Lila Bacha, Pramod Dubey, Gopal Pandey, Alauddin, Jakir Mian and claimed to identify remaining 10-12 persons on seeing them. Informant further stated Binod Ojha was armed with rifle, Karar Mian was armed with gun, Kamlesh Ojha was also armed with rifle and all these accused persons threatened them to kill. 4-5 dacoits scaled the roof of the house and remaining dacoits tied the hands of the informant and his brothers and took them inside the courtyard and enclosed them inside south west room. Some women were sleeping in the courtyard and were wearing gold ornaments, which dacoits took out. Dacoits committed dacoity for about 40 minutes in the courtyard. Dacoits looted articles and fled away and shut the main door from outside. Thereafter, they started shouting and on his shout, neighbour Dashrath Baitha (PW-1) came and opened the main door and the room in which they were confined. Then all the four brothers came in the courtyard and found the entire house open and the dacoits had looted boxes, attache, watches and others articles. Informant further stated that his B.S.A. cycle of value Rs. 1050/- one Radio valued Rs. 600/- 3 blankets valued Rs. 1500/- 3 gold earrings valued Rs. 6,000/- 2 gold locket valued Rs. 10,000/- Silver anklet valued Rs. 600/- and clothes were looted. Informant further stated the articles belonging to Shambhu Nath Shukla which were looted-2 gold ear rings valued Rs. 2,000/-Chhuchhiya gold valued Rs. 200/- silver chain valued Rs. 2000/- 11 sarees, pettycoat, blouse and frock valued Rs. 3000/- Murphy Radio valued Rs. 400/- H.M.T. watch valued Rs. 400/- cash 500/- and attaiche containing pant and shirt valued Rs. 1500/-. Informant further stated the looted articles belonging to Tarkeshwar Nath Shukla-Gold ear rings of 7 anna bhar valued Rs. 2500/- Gold nose ring valued Rs. 200/- silver chain valued Rs. 200/- Gold mangtika valued Rs. 2000/- nathuni valued Rs. 200/- Silver anklet valued Rs. 300/- ladies H.M.T. watch valued Rs. 300/-and saree, shirt and pant. Informant further stated the articles belonging to Bhola Nath Shukla which were looted ear rings valued Rs. 2500/- Gold locket valued Rs. 5000/- silver anklets valued Rs. 3000/- six sarees valued Rs. 2500/-and cash Rs. 5000/-. Informant further stated that articles the value of which totaling Rs. 60,450/- were looted.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Manjhiaon P.S. Case No. 21 of 1994 dated 16.05.1994 was r
The judgment emphasized the importance of proving the possession of stolen property by the accused and the need to examine the investigating officer to establish the occurrence and recovery of looted....
The prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and corroborating evidence is essential. Non-examination of key witnesses, lack of corroboration, and inconsistencies in the evidence ca....
A conviction under Section 395 of the IPC requires proof of the participation of five or more persons in the commission of dacoity; without such evidence, the conviction cannot stand.
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 acquitta....
Point of law: Court are conscious of the legal position that being part of a gang of dacoits, while the act of dacoity is on, is sufficient to make a member of that bunch of dacoits, present there, l....
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
