Jadu Manjhi vs The State of Bihar

Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellant has been convicted u/s 395 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which further R.I. for six months by a judgment dated 27.11.1993 passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1992/ 2 of 1992.

The prosecution case is that on the night of 16.6.1991 a dacoity was committed in his house by unknown dacoits.

During trial the prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.11 is the informant and P.W.3 is his grand mother, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence. The rest of the witnesses are either hearsay or merely on the point of occurrence. From the cross examination of the witnesses, it appears that the tola, where the Appellant was residing, was originally part of the tola of the informant and he was well known to the informant. It also appears from the evidence that the Appellant was arrested right after the occurrence by P.W.13, the Investigating Officer but no incriminating article was recovered either from his house or his possession and the fact that he continued to remain in his house indicates his innocent conduct. It appears the Appellant was caught after the occurrence only on suspicion and with mud on his legs and attempted to be produced before the police but he was got freed by the co-villagers.

It appears from the appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution that the entire case is based merely on speculation on account of the Appellant being found mud-splattered and there is no cogent proof with regard to his participation in the present occurrence.

In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant on 27.11.1993 by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1992/ 2 of 1992 is set aside. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.