Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mahendra Mistry. Vs. State of Bihar.

Mahendra Mistry. vs State of Bihar.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Apr 21, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916997

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 110 OF 1995
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.] This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the Respondent draw and pay the provisional pension from 08.04.2000 to till completion of enquiry. Thereafter issue further direction the period from 20.01,1995 onwards till the enq...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 395

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahendra Mistry.

Advocate Mr. B.K. Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of Bihar.

Advocate Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 395

Excerpt

[mr. justice anand byrareddy, j.] this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to direct the respondent draw and pay the provisional pension from 08.04.2000 to till completion of enquiry. thereafter issue further direction the period from 20.01,1995 onwards till the enquiry completed to treat the period as on duty in the event of charges and to du-w and pay all consequential benefits and etc.1. the appellant has been convicted for the offences under section 395 ipc and sentenced to ri for ten years by the 2nd additional sessions judge, saharsa in s.tr. no. 111/81/77/88 by a judgment dated 14.06.1995.2. the case of the prosecution is that a bus was looted between saharsa and budhama by six accused persons in which the appellant was identified by one witness subsequently in the test identification parade.3. the prosecution in all examined eight witnesses out of whom p.w. 1 is the informant but did not support the prosecution case in its entirety. p.w. 2 is the cleaner of the bus and he was declared hostile whereas p.w. 4 and p. w. 5 have also been declared hostile. p.w. 6 is the passenger of the bus who had identified the appellant in the test identification parade whereas p.w. 3 is the judicial magistrate who has conducted the test identification parade. p.w. 8 is formal witness.4. from the evidence of p.w. 3, it is evident that even though the occurrence has taken place on 07.03.1978 the test identification parade was held on 15.04.1978 i.e. more than a month later. admittedly the appellant was identified by only one witness and it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the sole evidence of p.w. 6 when the test identification parade was admittedly held more than a month later.5. under the circumstances, the appellant is given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges. in the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 14.06.1995 passed by the 2nd additional sessions judge, saharsa in s.tr. no. 111/81/77/88 is set aside. the appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bond.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in S.Tr. No. 111/81/77/88 by a judgment dated 14.06.1995.

2. The case of the prosecution is that a bus was looted between Saharsa and Budhama by six accused persons in which the appellant was identified by one witness subsequently in the Test Identification Parade.

3. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the informant but did not support the prosecution case in its entirety. P.W. 2 is the cleaner of the bus and he was declared hostile whereas P.W. 4 and P. W. 5 have also been declared hostile. P.W. 6 is the passenger of the bus who had identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade whereas P.W. 3 is the Judicial Magistrate who has conducted the Test Identification Parade. P.W. 8 is formal witness.

4. From the evidence of P.W. 3, it is evident that even though the occurrence has taken place on 07.03.1978 the Test Identification Parade was held on 15.04.1978 i.e. more than a month later. Admittedly the appellant was identified by only one witness and it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the sole evidence of P.W. 6 when the Test Identification Parade was admittedly held more than a month later.

5. Under the circumstances, the appellant is given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 14.06.1995 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in S.Tr. No. 111/81/77/88 is set aside. The appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bond.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial