Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

JAI PRAKASH MAHTO & OTHERS V/S STATE OF BIHAR, decided on Monday, January 5, 2015.
[ In the High Court at Patna, Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 1992. ] 05/01/2015
Advocate(s) : Rakesh Kumar Sinha. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  Vijay Prakash Pradhan Versus State of U.P. Thr The Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko & Another,   10/02/2017.  

  Narayan Singh & Others Versus State of Rajasthan,   12/01/2017.  

  Subramanian Swamy Versus Union of India, Ministry of Law & Others,   13/05/2016.  

  Pundeo Mahto Versus The State of Bihar,   07/04/2016.  

  Sagar Prakash Bhosale Versus The Commissioner of Police & Others,   04/04/2016.  

  M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited name changed as M/s. Sun pharmaceuticals Limited represented by Arun Sawhney (for short, ?Sun?) & Others Versus State of Telangana through P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, represented by its Public Prosecutor & Another,   01/04/2016.  

  Dudh Nath Guru Versus The State of Bihar,   16/03/2016.  

  Mirza Ali Raza & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others,   03/02/2016.  

  Ramandeep Singh @ Raman Versus State of Punjab,   28/01/2016.  

  Bukke Hima Bindu Versus State of A.P. rep. by Chief Secretary, GAD (L&O) Dept. & Others,   14/10/2015.  

  P. Surendra Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Chief Secretary & Others,   06/10/2015.  

  Vasanthu Sumalatha Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Chief Secretary & Others,   29/09/2015.  

  Taleshkumar Maganbhai Patel & Others Versus Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Thro' Commissioner & Another,   23/06/2015.  

  Rajrajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandal Versus State of Jharkhand ,   19/05/2015.  

  Sunil Samdaria Versus State of Rajasthan & Another ,   23/04/2015.  

  Sanjeet Kumar & Others Versus Krishna Chandra Prasad Sah & Others,   01/04/2015.  

  Narendra Mishra & Others Versus The State of Bihar Through The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others,   30/01/2015.  

  Sanjeev Kumar @ Pappu Sipahi @ Sanjeev Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Others,   20/01/2015.  

  Mariappan Versus The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli & Others,   18/08/2014.  

  Rajan Tiwari & Others Versus The State of Bihar through C.B.I.,   24/07/2014.  

  Pradeep Kumar & Others Versus The State of Bihar,   25/06/2014.  

  Shukeshwar Pasi alias Sheo Keshwar Chaudhary Versus The State of Bihar,   16/06/2014.  

  Prakash Chand Srivastav Versus State of U.P. & Others,   05/06/2014.  

  Lalo Chaudhary & Others Versus The State of Bihar,   16/05/2014.  

  The State of Bihar & Others Versus Upendra Kumar Thakur @ Upendra Kumar & Another,   07/05/2014.  

  Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Versus M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd.,   25/04/2014.  

  Pramod Singh Chandravanshi Versus Som Prakash Singh,   25/04/2014.  

  Bheemrao Versus Krishna (Since Deceased, By His LRs & Others,   15/04/2014.  

  The State of Bihar & Others Versus Radheshyam Choudhary & Others,   06/02/2014.  

  Badal Murmu & Others Versus State of West Bengal,   05/02/2014.  

  Jose Meleth Versus UOI & Others,   20/12/2013.  

  Shatrughan Mahton @ Satto Mahton & Others Versus The State of Bihar,   19/12/2013.  

  Chabila Mahto & Others Versus The State of Bihar,   10/12/2013.  

  Dodi Mahto & Others Versus The State of Bihar & Another,   09/12/2013.  

  Mahabir Sahni & Others Versus The State of Bihar,   03/12/2013.  

  T. Bhuvaneswari Versus The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Erode & Others,   29/11/2013.  

  The State of Bihar & Others Versus Girja Singh & Others,   09/10/2013.  

  D. Jagannathan IAS Versus S. Sattanathan & Others,   30/09/2013.  

  Basudeo Mandal Versus State of Bihar,   06/08/2013.  

  Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Others Versus The State of Bihar through the C.B.I.,   17/05/2013.  

  S. Sivaguru & Others Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Others,   07/05/2013.  

  Hazari Das & Others Versus State of Bihar,   03/04/2013.  

  Barhamdeo Modi and Others Versus State of Bihar and Others,   27/02/2013.  

  Kamla Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Others,   17/01/2013.  

  Janardan Singh & Another Versus The Chancellor of the Universities cum Governor of Bihar through the Officer on Special Duty & Others,   07/12/2012.  

  Om Prakash & Others Versus State Of Jharkhand Through the Secretary, Department of Home & Others,   26/09/2012.  

  Mahesh Chandra Verma & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Others,   19/09/2012.  

  Maya Ajit Satam Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others,   24/08/2012.  

  Dr. Ram Prakash Mahto Katihar District Versus The State of Bihar,   03/07/2012.  

  Prashant Appasaheb @ Apparao Kate Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another,   05/03/2012.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2015 (2) Crimes(SN) 620"  ==   ""  

    Navaniti Prasad Singh J.1. The three appellants in these two appeals have been convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short `I.P.C.’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 1990/ 2 of 1992 by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 06.08.1992.2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan lodged by Sheo Balak Rai (P.W.17) the husband of the deceased Kaushalya Devi at about 8 am at Narma State Dispensary. It was recorded by Suresh Dubey A.S.I. of Hathuri Police Station District Muzaffarpur who has not been examined. He was also the Investigating Officer but he had not filed the charge-sheet which was filed by P.W.16 Bhisam Singh.3. It is inter-alia alleged that the fardbeyan was given when the informant (P.W.17) Sheo Balak Rai regained consciousness at State Dispensary. It is stated that in the night of 29.12.1988 when the informant was sleeping at the door in his hut he woke up on the sound of calf tied outside. When the informant came out of the hut he found that there were about 10 dacoits who had come. Some of them went into the hut where his wife Kaushalya Devi and his younger son Aklu Rai (P.W.1) were sleeping. They demanded money. There was a scuffle. He was badly beaten up. He ran out of the house. The dacoits then removed Rs.4 200/- from his pocket. His son was able to identify one of the dacoits as Bhola Paswan one of the appellants who is of neighboring village. This fardbeyan as noted above was given at 8 am on 30.12.1988. It appears that the fardbeyan was then recorded as a formal first information report on the same day at 2.30 pm and the case being registered it was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Muzaffarpur who had perused the same on 31.12.1988. The said Suresh Dubey A.S.I. then took up investigation and at about 7.30 am on 31.12.1988 appellant Bhola Paswan was arrested from his house and a detailed confessional statement was recorded by the said Suresh Dubey A.S.I. which was signed (thumb impression) by Bhola Paswan wherein he has named in all ten persons who were involved in the said dacoity. After completing investigation charge-sheet was submitted against six persons i.e. three appellants and three others out of whom two were shown as absconders. Cognizance having been taken the case was committed to the Court of Session and charges were framed under Section 396 I.P.C. against all the six accused persons but after trial the three appellants alone were convicted and the rest persons were acquitted though the non-charge sheeted accused and all the charge-sheeted accused were named in the confessional statement of appellant Bhola Paswan as recorded by the Police.4. Learned counsel for the appellants states that though the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses it would not be relevant to refer to all of them in detail because as per the fardbeyan itself it is only the informant who was able to identify appellant Bhola Paswan. The informant is P.W.17 Sheo Balak Rai. Other person who was present is his son Aklu Rai who has been examined as P.W.1. The A.S.I. Suresh Dubey who conducted the investigation arrested appellant Bhola Paswan and recorded his confessional statement has not been examined and no reason therefor has been furnished by the prosecution. It appears that a test identification parade was also conducted after various accused persons had been arrested. In the said test identification parade the informant was able to identify the appellants Jay Prakash Mahato and Babaji Sahni. There is yet another witness who is P.W. 11 Sukhdeo Rai who also identified the said two appellants in the test identification parade.5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits with reference to deposition of P.W.11 that P.W.11 in his cross-examination admits that he came to the place of occurrence after the dacoits had left which it is rightly submitted is enough to discredit his identification with regard to the two appellants either at the test identification parade or in the court.6. We then have P.W. 1 Aklu Rai the son of the informant. He was about 7-8 years old when the incident took place. A reference to his deposition clearly shows that he was unable to identify any body. He in categorical terms stated that when the dacoits started beating up he ran away. In cross-examination he admits that the villagers came after the dacoits had fled thereby meaning that no one else could have identified any of the dacoits. That leaves us with the informant P.W. 17 Sheo Balak Rai.7. P.W. 17 Sheo Balak Rai in the fardbeyan had stated that he was able to identify appellant Bhola Paswan in the hut by the torch light of the accused persons. However when we come to his deposition in the Court as the prosecution witness he states that all the dacoits had covered and coloured their faces so as to conceal their identities. It was a dark night. When he was being beaten up he ran out of the hut and went into the village calling for help. When he returned the dacoits had already fled away leaving his wife stabbed to death. In his cross-examination he stated that he had identified appellant Bhola Paswan from a distance of about 10 laggis one laggi being about 6 & ft. It gives a complete go by to identification by torch light in the hut itself. Thus seen as per his own statement in the Court he was able to identify appellant Bhola Paswan who had tried to conceal his identity from a distance of about 60 ft. on a dark night either while the dacoits were escaping or while he was escaping from the hut. In his cross-examination he admits that so far as appellant Bhola Paswan is concerned he knew him from before as his brother had taken some money from the informant which he was not returning. He had identified the other two appellants at the test identification parade after about two months of their arrest but in the cross-examination he admits that about two months prior to the incident he had an altercation with the two appellants.8. Learned counsel for the appellants rightly submits that the identification of the three appellants is not at all reliable. So far as appellant Bhola Paswan is concerned in the fardbeyan he is alleged to have been identified by torch light in the hut itself but in the Court story is changed as he is said to have been identified at a distance of about 60 ft. while he was running away on a dark night. He is known to the informant and there is an animus for false implication as admitted in the cross-examination.9. We would like to notice yet another fact so far as appellant Bhola Paswan is concerned. It is his alleged confessional statement made before the Investigating Officer and signed by him that led to the arrest of other accused persons. This confessional statement was recorded at 07.30 am on 31.12.1988 i.e. the very next morning of the fardbeyan being recorded. But this appellant was not sent for remand to the Court. His confessional statement was rather sent to the Court only on 01.01.1989 whereas the F.I.R. was sent on 31.12.1988 and received in the Court on the same day by which time appellant Bhola Paswan had already been arrested and his confessional statement was allegedly recorded. The reason for this has not been explained by the prosecution as that Police Officer has not been examined in Court even though I.O. Suresh Dubey was shown as a charge-sheet witness.10. It is further rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the fardbeyan itself would show that the informant was brought unconscious to the Sate Dispensary because he states that having regained consciousness he was making the statement. He had received injuries but no injury report was brought on record. Why he was brought at the State Dispensary where his fardbeyan was recorded is not explained. As per his fardbeyan he was not injured by the dacoits while they were fleeing away. All this remains to be unexplained.11. Having given our anxious consideration we are unable to rely upon the identification of the three appellants. The reason is simple. In the cross-examination the informant agrees to the facts clearly showing that there was animus. His evidence clearly indicates that all the dacoits were concealing their faces. The means of identification or manner of identification changes completely from the fardbeyan and the statement before the Court. In the fardbeyan appellant Bhola Paswan is said to have been identified by torch light of dacoits in the hut itself but in the Court it is stated that the informant had seen Bhola Paswan from a distance of 60 ft. on a dark night outside the hut. This major contradiction is not explained. This informant knew the three appellants from before but still the other two were also not named in the fardbeyan. This leads us to believe that though there might have been a dacoity in the hut of the informant in which his wife was killed but the implication of these three appellants in the incident cannot be said to be valid or correct. It is clearly actuated by malice there being no valid identification. In these circumstances we have no option but to allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.12. In the result both the appeals are allowed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.