High CourtsSingle Bench

Manoj Kumar Mandal and Others vs The State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 4 July 2011 · Citation: (2011) 07 PAT CK 0022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anjana Prakash, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 399, 400, 401, 402
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 89 0f 1997
Ask AI about this case

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

6 paragraphs · 323 words

Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under each count by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 375 of 1997 by a judgment dated 20.3.1997.

2.

The case of the prosecution according to Arbind Kumar Singh, Officer Incharge of Nath Nagar P.S. is that on 31.12.1982 at about 4.30 P.M. while he was conducting a raid, he learnt that some persons were planning to commit dacoity and they were rounded up, in which the present Appellant was arrested on the spot.

3.

The prosecution in all examined ten witnesses out of whom PW-1 and PW-10 are formal in nature. PW-5 and PW-6 who are independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. PW-2 and PW-3 even though have supported the prosecution case but failed to identify any of the accused persons whereas PW-4 identified by the accused persons but could not name them. PW-7 also supported the prosecution case. PW-8 has supported the factum of occurrence but admitted that he was not present at the place of occurrence.

4.

It appears that even though some of the accused persons were charged under the Provisions of Arms Act but they were acquitted of the charges since the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of recovery of Arms from some of the Appellants. In the absence of any proof that the Appellants were Armed with weapons their mere assemblage at the place of occurrence cannot automatically mean that they were sitting around and planning to commit dacoity or some illegal act.

5.

In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Trial No. 375 of 1987 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, is hereby set aside.

6.

The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bond.