Insufficient evidence and lack of corroboration in testimony led to the reversal of conviction for serious offences under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that out of six appellants, the appellant No.1 Rajendra Prasad @ Sao and appellant No.3 Dadan Prasad have been died during the pendency of this appeal and their appeal has been abated in vide order dated 13th February 2025.

2. A separate case was filed on behalf of appellant Rajendra Prasad (In Criminal Appeal (SJ) 252 of 2007) who has also been died and the appeal filed on behalf of him also stands abated vide order dated 22.11.2019.

3. Heard Mr. K.K. Mishra learned counsel for alive appellants as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

4. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 18.01.2006 and 19.01.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Latehar in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2003 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 47 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 307 /34, 452/34 and 380/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 /34; R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each and for the offence under Section 4 52 /34; R.I. for 05 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and for the offence under Section 380 /34 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation.

Factual Matrix

5. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 04.05.2001 at about 08:30 pm informant was teaching her children meanwhile Rajendra Prasad @ Sao, Pradip Kumar, Sandip Kumar, Tara Devi, Urmila Devi and one another break open and entered into her house by opening the grill gate. It is further alleged that at the present accused persons were armed with guns, pistol and opened one fire just entering into the house. It is alleged that Rajendra Sao (deceased appellant) started pressing the neck of the informant with intention to kill and robbed her belongings and when informant raised alarm meanwhile Tara Devi, Urmila Devi, Rajendra Prasad and Dadan Sao started breaking upon the Godrej Almirah and put robbed her ornaments, clothes, cash and kitchen utensils and by putting in a bag, fled away.

6. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Sections 34 1, 342, 307, 452, 380, 504, 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 34 1, 342, 307, 452, 380, 504, 34 of the I.P.C. Further, after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the charges were framed under Section 307 /34, 452/34, 380/34 of the I.P.C. The charges were read-over and explained to accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order was passed which has been assailed in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned trial court has miserably failed to consider the medical examination report of the victim-informant which does not attract the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The circumstances under which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place are very general and vague terms. It is alleged that the accused persons have broke open the Almirah and also plundered jewelleries and other household articles, but neither the broken Almirah nor any stolen material have bee