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 · 296 wordsAnjana Prakash, J.—Heard.
The Appellant has been convicted u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years passed by the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 458 of 1994/153 of 1994 by a judgment dated 15.6.1995.
The case of the prosecution is that a dacoity was committed in the house of the Informant between the nights of 15/16.11. 1993 by the Appellant as well as some unknown persons.
During trial the prosecution examined four witnesses out of whom P.W. 4 is the Investigating Officer whereas P.W. 3 has been declared hostile. P.W. 1 is the mother of the Informant on the factum of dacoity whereas P.W. 2 is the Informant and the sole witness with regard to the implication of the Appellant.
From the evidence of the Informant (P.W. 2), it appears that he had conceded that if he went to the Police Station, he did not disclose the name of the Appellant at the earliest instance and in fact, he named him later on. He also conceded that the accused used to come to his village to work in the house of one Kishore Prasad as a laborer and, therefore, was well known to him. Under the said circumstances, the evidence of P.W. 2 who is the sole witness on the point of complicity of the Appellant is fit to be rejected.
In view of the discussions made above, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Trial No. 458 of 1994/153 of 1994 by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalanda, is hereby set aside.
The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.