Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Subhash Chand, J.
Bhim Mian, son of Late Nepal Mian - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.498 of 2011
Decided On : 13-09-2023
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code - 391, 395 - The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution and found that the charge against the appellant under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted from the charge.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dacoity where the appellant was convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code based on the prosecution's evidence. The appellant appealed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, claiming that the evidence was based on the testimony of interested witnesses and lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against him beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and the lack of corroboration, did not prove the charge against the appellant under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were based on a perverse finding and set them aside. The appellant was acquitted from the charge.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charge against the appellant under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, the credibility of the witnesses, and the lack of corroboration from independent witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the need for the prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the involvement of other accused persons and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, which was found to be fatal to the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, allowing the Criminal Appeal and acquitting the appellant from the charge. The appellant's bail bonds were cancelled, and the sureties were discharged from their liability.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 29.07.2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 180 of 2002 arising out of Bengabad P.S. Case No.31 of 2001, G.R. No.517 of 2001, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo RI for one month.
2. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Appeal as per the prosecution case is that on 24.03.2001 at about 02:00 am two persons intruded in the veranda, where the informant Kedar Singh was sleeping and they asked him to open the door. The wife of Kedar Singh, namely, Dropadi Devi was sleeping in the room and after hearing the noise, she came and opened the door. Thereafter, 3-4 persons intruded in the house. One miscreant showed the weapon and told the informant to sit in veranda and two persons started assaulting the wife of the informant and also abused her. When the wife of the informant wanted to raise alarm, the miscreants threatened her. It is further alleged that the accused persons began to commit loot of the household articles. They also assaulted the son of the informant and asked him about the money and other household articles. The miscreants took away the golden earrings, golden chain, bangles, payal and 5/6 silver chains and one Onida T.V. The miscreants left the Onida T.V. behind the house. They also took away 3 in 1 Audio of Philips Company and Radio of Philips Company and two suit case (safari), one Yasica Camera and Rs.9500/- in cash. They also took away the government papers, saree, pant and shirt. The wife of the informant identified one of the miscreant, who was Bhim Mian of Mahtodih, Chotki Kharagdiha, Bengabad, who was recently residing at his sasural Baramo and also identified another person, who were resident of Mahtodih, but their names were not known to her. It is also alleged that in the year 2000, Jainul Ansari has charged his wife for carrying the profession of conducting illegal abortion in the village, which was totally wrong because his wife had gone to New Delhi for her treatment along with her son. Jainul Ansari and Arjun Saw were always giving threatening and they were making plan for committing dacoity in his house. Accordingly, this case was registered as Bengabad P.S. Case No.31 of 2001 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against Bhim Mian, the appellant herein and five unknown persons.
3. The Investigating Officer after concluded the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused Bhim Mian for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the same and committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Giridih.
4. The trial Court framed the charge against the accused Bhim Mian for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code the same was read over and explained to him, he denied the charge and claimed to face the trial.
5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence examined altogether seven witnesses i.e. PW-1, Anil Kumar; PW-2, Baijnath Prasad Verma; PW-3, Ramdeo Saw; PW-4, Kedar Singh (informant); PW-5, Nasir Mian; PW-6, Dropadi Devi and; PW-7, Md. Israil Ansari and in documentary evidence the prosecution has filed Exhibit1, Written report and Exhibit-1/1, Signature of the witness.
6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against him and stated himself to be innocent. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
7. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for the State, passed the impugned judgment of con
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....
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....
Conviction for dacoity was overturned due to significant evidentiary inconsistencies, including lack of reliable identification and failure to examine critical witnesses.
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.
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
