[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Mainuddin Mian vs State Of Bihar on 20 December, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.726 of 2004
======================================================
Mainuddin Mian, S/O Liyakat Mian, Resident Of Village-Dodwalia, P.S.-
Kuchaikote, District-Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. M. Dayal, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-12-2025
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-convict under Section-374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code')
challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated
13.10.2004
and order of sentence dated 14.10.2004 passed
by court of learned Additional Sessions Judge presiding the
F.T.C. No. II, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1994 of
2005, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted
appellant under Section 395 of the IPC, where appellant
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.726 of 2004 dt.20-12-2025
and further pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and had to go rigorous
imprisonment for six months.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per
FIR is that on 15.12.1992 at about 11:00 P.M., while the
informant was sleeping in his fertilizer shop at Basawanpur
Bazar after closing his cloth shop, five to six dacoits entered
the fertilizer shop, demanded the keys of the cloth shop at
gunpoint, assaulted the informant with sticks and shoes, and
threatened him not to raise an alarm. Meanwhile, other
dacoits entered into the cloth shop and looted cash and
clothes worth about Rs. 60,000/-. After tying up Gujeshwari
Sah and Gokul Sah, the docoits fled eastward with bundles of
clothes. The informant later freed the tied persons, raised an
alarm, and chased the dacoits with co-villagers, who escaped
after throwing away some bundles. The F.I.R. speaks that the
dacoits were 5-6 men aged around 25-30 years. Informant
claimed to identify them.
4. On the basis of aforesaid information, Gopalpur
P.S. Case No. 64 of 1992 was lodged for the offence
punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.726 of 2004 dt.20-12-2025
Code.
5. After completion of investigation the charge-
sheet was submitted before learned jurisdictional magistrate
which upon commitment transfer to the court of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. II, Gopalganj who upon
the perusal of material collected during investigation framed
charges on 25.11.1998 against appellant-accused, who upon
explanation pleaded as "not guilty" and claimed trial.
6. To substantiate its case, before learned Trial
Court the prosecution has examined altogether 5 witnesses.
None of the witness examined in defense. They are:-
Sr. No(s). Prosecution Witnesses
P.W. 1 Sudama Pradhan-Father
of the Informant
P.W. 2 Haridwar Pradhan-
Informant
P.W. 3 Rabindra Pradhan
P.W. 4 Ranjit Kumar Rai
P.W. 5 Shri U.B. Mishra, the then
Learned Judicial
Magistrate who held the
T.I.Parade.
7. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution
has also proved the following documentary evidence in order
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.726 of 2004 dt.20-12-2025
to prove the charges:
Sl. No. Exhibit Nos. List of documents
1. Exhibit-1 Fardbeyan
2. Exhibit-1/A Signature on Fardbeyan
3. Exhibit-2 T.I. Parade Report
4. Exhibit- 3 Formal F.I.R.
8. The statement of the appellant-accused was
recorded under Section 313 of the Code after stating
incriminating evidences/circumstances as surfaced during the
trial, which they denied and shows their complete innocence.
9. Taking note of the evidence as surfaced during
the trial and the arguments as advanced by the parties, the
learned Trial Court has convicted appellant/convict for the
offences under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him in the manner as stated above.
10. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the appellant/convict has
preferred the present appeal.
11. Hence, the present appeal.
12. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant/accused that the order of conviction
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.726 of 2004 dt.20-12-2025
and sentence passed by the learned trial court is bad in the
eyes of law and on the facts of the case.
13. It is submitted that the learned trial court
has failed to appreciate that the T.I. Parade held in this case
has no value in the eyes of law as the accused/appellant is a
resident of an adjacent village and is known to the all the
witnesses. The T.I. Parade is further vitiated by the fact that
the witnesses has themselves accepted that the I.O. of this
case had identified the appellant to the witnesses in police
station.
14. It is further submitted that the exercise of
Police dog tracking was a futile exercise as it was conducted
after the lapse of two winter nights which is sufficient to
disturbed the place of occurrence as to connect accused
persons. The accused/appellant was arrested during the
exercise of dog tracking merely on the ground of suspicion.
15. Mr. Pandey further submitted that the
appellant was arrested on 17.12.92 and was remanded on
19.12.92. The appellant was kept in police custody for more
than 48 Hours without any relevant and appropriate entry in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.726 of 2004 dt.20-12-2025
the case diary, where no looted articles or any incriminating
articles has been recovered from the possession of the
appellant.
16. It submitted by Mr. Pandey, that the learned
trial Court has totally ignored to consider the statements of
the appellant made under section 313 Cr.P.C. which appears
recorded in very cryptic and mechanical manner.
17. Learned APP appearing on behalf of State,
while opposing the appeal submitted that accused/appellant was
identified during TIP.
18. I have perused the trial court records carefully
and gone through the evidences available on record and also
considered the rival submissions as canvassed by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties.
19. P.W.-1 is (Sudama Pradhan), who is father of
Informant. P.W.2 inform to his father (PW1) that both shops had
been looted and they had been beaten a lot.
20. P.W.-2 (Haridwar Pradhan, Informant)- Upon
not giving the shop keys as asked by dacoits was beaten with
sticks and lathi. He identified the accused persons, including the
accused Moinuddin Mian. He supported the alleged prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.726 of 2004 dt.20-12-2025
case of his fardbeyan and has identified the accused.
21. P.W.-3 (Ravindra Pradhan)- testified that
around 10-11pm at night when he was home, he heard the shout
of PW2 where the cloth shop has been robbed and robbers fled
towards Phulwaria Chowk. He also chased them towards that
direction along with other villagers and identified the accused
during course of T.LP, Bhanta Tiwari and Mainuddin.
22. P.W.-4 is (Ranjit Kumar Rai), who testified
that his shop, Sudama Pradhan and Harish Pradhan was robbed at
around 11pm. He himself did not see the faces of the dacoits while
chasing them, as he and the villagers chased them and robbers
had run away towards Phulwaria Chowk.
23. P.W.-5 (Shri U.B. Mishra)- On the basis of
identification mentioned in records he identified the suspect
accused persons. Prepared the report upon conducting the
identification parade on the basis of seeing the suspect Mainuddin
Mian who was carrying lathi and Ramesh Tiwari who was running
away while carrying country made pistol, witness Ranjit Kumar
identified them.
24. C.W.-1- The LO of the case has very reliably
supported over the PWs statement. Both the caught accused were
put forward to Jail Custody and they were put on TIP and were
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.726 of 2004 dt.20-12-2025
identified by the witnesses. The accused were identified at the P.S.
by the witnesses before conducting the T.I.P.
25. Upon perusal of records, it appears that the
judgment of conviction was recorded only for the reason that
during T.I. Parade, this appellant was identified by the prosecution
witnesses. It appears from the testimony of the P.W.-1, P.W.-2
(Informant), P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 that they have supported the
occurrence but failed to name the appellant while lodging the
F.I.R. and therefore same was registered against unknown. It also
appears from cross examination that these witnesses categorically
deposed that the appellant was shown to them in police custody
and being a nearby villages they all known to appellant making
T.I.Parade non-relevant as to establish the involvement of
appellant with crime in question beyond reasonable doubt.
26. The sole ground on which the appellant was
convicted in present crime in question appears apparently non-
convincing and thus by prosecution miserably failed to establish
guilt of appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.
27. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
28. The impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated conviction dated 13.10.2004 and order of
sentence dated 14.10.2004 passed by court of learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.726 of 2004 dt.20-12-2025
Additional Sessions Judge presiding the F.T.C. No. II,
Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1994 of 2005 is
accordingly set aside.
29. The appellant, above-named, is acquitted of the
charges levelled against him by giving him the benefit of doubt.
Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities
of his bail bond. Sureties stands discharged. Fine if any paid, be
returned to appellant hence forth.
30. Office is directed to send back the lower court
records along with a copy of the judgment to the court below,
henceforth.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Neha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 24.12.2025
Transmission Date
