Allowed

Suresh Sahani v. State of Bihar

Patna HC15 May 2014CR. APP (SJ)/83/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction for dacoity, the High Court allowed the appeal due to insufficient evidence regarding the arrest, the number of dacoits, and the complicity of others, ordering the appellant's acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence dated 25.04.1995 and 26.04.1995 were set aside; the appellant was acquitted and discharged from bail liability.

Suresh Sahani Vs State of Bihar — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.83 of 1995 ===========================================================
Suresh Sahani, Son of Gopal Sahani, Resident of Village Malahi Tola Mahesara, P.S. Gopalpur, District East Champaran. .... .... Appellant Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent ===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Shri Pramod Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Shri Sujit Kumar Singh, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 15-05-2014

¶3

None appeared on repeated calls. I requested Shri Pramod Kumar, Advocate to assist the Court and accordingly, I have heard him. I have also heard Shri Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶4

It appears that a dacoity was committed at about 12 in the night on 04.09.1992 in the house of P.W.5 Bindhyachal Parit and in houses of other persons also. As per allegation the house of the informant and others, like, Narayan and Bilash were also plundered by the dacoits. After committing dacoity the criminals left the scene of occurrence but one of them, i.e., the present appellant Suresh Sahani, was captured by the informant.

¶5

On the basis of the Fardbeyan of P.W.5, the First Information Report was drawn up and the case was investigated

¶6

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.83 of 1995 dt.15-05-2014

¶7

2 / 4

¶8

into by P.W.6 who sent the accused up for their trial which ultimately ended in the impugned judgment.

¶9

The learned trial judge held that dacoity was indeed committed in the house of at least P.W.5 Bindhyachal Parit. It was also held by the learned trial judge that as regards the complicity of other accused, namely, Sheikh Alim it was not established and as such he was acquitted. The learned trial judge convicted the present appellant only on the ground that he was caught at the spot.

¶10

P.W.5 Bindhyachal Parit stated that he caught the present appellant who was already known to him from before because he was the resident of a neighbouring village. It was suggested to P.W.5 that it was a case of false implication of the appellant on account of some land dispute. Similarly, the brother of P.W.5 Jagdish Parit (P.W.1) also stated as if the present appellant had been caught at the spot. What appears from the evidence of these witnesses, like, P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 is that the present appellant who was already known to the informant, had entered inside the house of the informant so as to committing dacoity but had never taken any precaution to conceal his identities. This appears unnatural. The evidence does indicate that he was caught at the spot, but the other evidence that after being

¶11

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.83 of 1995 dt.15-05-2014

¶12

3 / 4

¶13

caught he was handed over to the local Chaukidar appears not established by the prosecution as the Chaukidar was not examined to state that he was handed over the custody of the arrested accused. The evidence of the informant also indicated, as may appear from paragraph 1 of his deposition-sheet that the Investigating Officer came and he took the arrested accused into his custody. But, P.W.6 the Investigating Officer does not say that he had ever taken the present appellant into his custody. These are some of the facts which create a doubt as regards the story of the appellant being caught at the spot. Moreover, Sheikh Alim had been acquitted. There was no proof as to what was the number of dacoits and as such the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code also appears not established as per law.

¶14

In view of the discussions of evidence which I have just made, it appears a case in which the prosecution had not been able in establishing the charge to the hilt. As a result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 25.04.1995 and the order of sentence dated 26.04.1995, passed in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 1993. The appellant, namely, Suresh Sahani is acquitted of the charge, he had been found guilty of. The appellant is on bail. He shall stand discharged from the liability of

¶15

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.83 of 1995 dt.15-05-2014

¶16

4 / 4

¶17

his bail bond.

¶18

Shri Pramod Kumar, Advocate has assisted the

¶19

Court and the Court desires that he be paid one fee of hearing by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶20

(Dharnidhar Jha, J.)

¶21

Patna High Court The 15^th of May, 2014 Sanjay/N.A.F.R.

¶22

__ || U || T

Suresh Sahani v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Sahani v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamleshwar Singh @ Kamleshwar Singh Vs State of Bihar and Anr.

Prakash Paswan and Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Raghunath Rai Vs State of Bihar

Ghurghur Singh and Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Arvind Kumar Vs the Union of India

Munna Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar