AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 300 wordsAnjana Prakash, J.—Heard.
The Appellants have been convicted u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three year 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three year rigorous imprisonment by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, by the judgment dated 12.1.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 75 of 1987.
The case of the prosecution is that on the night between 13/14.6.1986, a robbery was committed in the house of the Informant and buffaloes were stolen. In the transaction, the present Appeals were identified by the inmates of the house.
The prosecution in all examined five witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the Informant whereas P.W. 2 is the brother of the Informant and P.W. 4, the mother of the Informant deposed as eye witness. P.W. 3 is hear-say whereas P.W. 5 is formal in nature. Neither the Investigating Officer nor any independent witness has been examined in this case.
On behalf of the defence, one witness was examined who stated that he was used to live adjacent to the house of the Informant and had gone to his house after the occurrence but neither the Informant nor any of the witnesses disclosed the names of the Appellants. It also appears that there is land dispute between the parties and under the circumstances it is quite likely that they were falsely implicated on this account and therefore difficult to accept the prosecution case narrated by the Informant and his witnesses. Informant and his witnesses.
In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Trial No. 75 of 1987 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ara, is hereby set aside.
The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.