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
8 paragraphs · 313 wordsAnjana Prakash, J.
1 The Appellants have been convicted u/s 395 IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by a judgment dated 19.08.1994 in S. Tr. No 252 of 1989 passed by Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur.
The prosecution case is that on the night of 4/5.08.1988 the dacoity was committed in the house of the informant and several house-holds articles were taken away by dacoits.
3.During trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the informant whereas P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are his family members. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are the Judicial Officers who conducted the Test Identification Parade of both the Appellants whereas P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 are formal in nature.
Since the name of the Appellants transpired during investigation they were remanded in the present case whereas the Test Identification Parade of the Appellant Dharam Deo Singh was held on 06.09.1988 that of Surendra Sahni was held on 29.03.1989.
During trial P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 supported the factum of dacoity whereas P.W. 4 is not an eye witness it appears from the evidence of P.W. 6, Judicial Officer who conducted the Test Identification of Appellant Dharam Deo Singh. P.W. 6 has stated that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had identified Appellant, Surendra Sahni in the Test Identification Parade held on 29.03.1989.
It appears from the evidence of both these two Judicial Officers that the Test Identification Parade was held after much delay and the possibility of a wrong identification under the circumstances can not be ruled out.
In view of discussion made above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 19.08.1994 passed by Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in S. Tr. No. 252 of 1989 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.