Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151825',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
			'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151825',
		(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151825',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
		'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151825',
	(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1151825/rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151825',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
			'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151825',
		(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151825',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
		'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151825',
	(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1151825/rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th additional sessions judge, munger in sessions trial no. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under sections 435 read with section 149 of the indian penal code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under section 435 of the indian penal code and those two are appellants rabi singh @ rabindra singh and arun singh. by judgment dated the 20th of july, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant dhano singh, whose appeal abated as appears from courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under sections 435/149 of the indian penal code. while the deceased-appellant was.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151825',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
			'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151825',
		(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151825',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
		'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151825',
	(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1151825/rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.

2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151825',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
			'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151825',
		(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151825',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
		'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151825',
	(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1151825/rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151825',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
			'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151825',
		(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151825',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
		'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151825',
	(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1151825/rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151825',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
			'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151825',
		(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151825',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
		'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151825',
	(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1151825/rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151825',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
			'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151825',
		(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151825',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
		'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151825',
	(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1151825/rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151825',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
			'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151825',
		(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151825',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
		'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151825',
	(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1151825/rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151825',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
			'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151825',
		(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151825',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
		'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151825',
	(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1151825/rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151825',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
			'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151825',
		(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151825',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
		'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151825',
	(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1151825/rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151825',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
			'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151825',
		(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rabi Singh Rabindra Singh and Others Vs the State of Bihar - Citation 1151825 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151825',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 134 of 1995 ',
		'appellant' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Others Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-03-25',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.</p><p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.</p><p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.</p><p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.</p><p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.</p><p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.</p><p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.</p><p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151825',
	(int) 1 => 'rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1151825/rabi-singh-rabindra-vs-state-bihar'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. Thirty seven accused persons were put on trial by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1986 by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them being specifically charged with commission of offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and those two are appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. By judgment dated the 20th of July, 1995, 34 out of 37 accused were acquitted of the charges and three, namely, the two appellants along with deceased-appellant Dhano Singh, whose appeal abated as appears from Courts order dated 11.03.2014, were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the deceased-appellant was released after execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his matured old age, the two appellants, namely, Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for their conviction under Sections 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred, as may appear from the present narration, by the three convicted persons which survived after the death of appellant Dhano Singh only on behalf of the present two appellants.<p> 2. Sahdeo Singh (P.W. 6) gave his Fardbeyan on 29.11.1985 at 9 A.M. at his village stating that while he was sitting at his Darwaza with Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Arjun Singh (P.W. 4) and Balak Singh examined as Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Padarath Singh examined as Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3), the thirty seven accused arrived there at his Khalihan which was, as appears from the Fardbeyan as also from evidence, contiguously situated with other part of his fields over which paddy crop had been grown. Bundles of paddy had been stacked inside the Khalihan and the informant stated that he had some information that persons of Naga group were about, either to harvest the standing paddy crop or to loot away the bundles of paddy or possibly were to commit the acts of looting paddy crop and bundles. The informant stated that he had accordingly, informed the concerned police station and the Officer-in-Charge of the police station with a contingent of police force had arrived there when the mob of 37 persons out of whom acquitted accused Vijay Singh, Navin Singh and Vinod Singh were armed with guns and had started firing shots no sooner than they had arrived at the place of occurrence. Further set of three acquitted accused, namely, Lagan Singh, Satendra Singh and Arvind Singh were having bombs with them and they also detonated them. The mob of accused persons started looting away the bundles of paddy and deceased-appellant Dhano Singh ordered that the whole Khalihan should be set on fire upon which appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh is said to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the bundles of paddy and appellant Arun Singh set them at fire by lighting match stick. The bundles of paddy and the whole Khalihan were under flames and the erupting flames attracted villagers who also saw the occurrence. Besides, those persons who were sitting with the informant like P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also witnessed the occurrence.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> 3. As may appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Insepctor Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 7), he had prior information that a particular group of persons may indulge into loot of paddy crop and harvested paddy bundles and he had arrived at the scene of occurrence with contingent of force and he also testified that in his presence the whole incident of loot and arson had taken place. P.W. 7 stated that gun shots were also fired and sound of exploding bombs were also heard while he was keeping a vigil on the paddy fields and as per his evidence the sound of gun shots and exploding bombs were coming from the Khalihan of P.W. 6 whereafter he rushed to the Khalihan and with the aid of police constables attempted to extinguish the flames of fire. P.W. 7 stated that the villagers, assembled there, also aided the police force in dousing the flames. During that course P.W. 7 claimed to have arrested two accused persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sarjug Singh (both acquitted) and it appears from his answer to a Court question that while he was dousing the flames of fire, he had tied the two apprehended accused with the help of rope and had further tied them to the pillar of the house of P.W. 6. P.W. 7 stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and during that course he jointly recorded the statements of Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Arjun Singh ( P.W. 4) and as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by cross-examining P.W. 7 in paragraphs 38 and 39 that those witnesses had not named these two appellants Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh as persons who had either sprinkled kerosene oil or had set the bundles of paddy at fire. At any rate the Investigating Officer, after completing the formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet sending up 37 persons to trial which ended in the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 4. The defence of the appellants was that there was a deity of Mahavir Jee in the village and the informant Sahdeo Singh had transferred the land in question to the trust created for the maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity and had illegally attempted to resume possession which was resisted by the villagers as a result of which a false case had been lodged by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 5. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W. 4 was tendered for cross-examination whereas Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2), Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) and Upendra Singh (P.W. 5) were giving eye-witness account to the occurrence and were supporting the informant P.W.6. But what I found during the course of argument and perusal of evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge was that P.Ws. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Balak Singh and Ram Padarath Singh had never made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating to him that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the stack of paddy and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to them. It appears further from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 that the trust was there in favour of Sri Mahavir Jee and he had transferred the land, though P.W. 6 has stated that he was forced to transfer some land to the trust. The subsequent statement in the same paragraph, however, indicated that he in spite of being forced to transfer the land had not taken any steps for setting aside the transfer deed or resuming the possession of the land sufficiently raised the inference that it was a validly constituted trust and the disputed properties had definitely been transferred by P.W. 6 in favour of the trust created for maintenance and Puja Archana of the deity. Thus, what appears is that as soon as the transfer was made and the trust was created, legally speaking, the informant could not say that he was in possession of the land in dispute. This was one serious defect which has been identified by this Court in the claim of possession of the informant. Moreover, while perusing the whole gamut of evidence which was produced before the learned trial Judge, this Court could not identify a single statement from any witness that paddy had been transplanted by the informant and he had been in possession of the land. In spite of these frailties the Court has attempted to isolate evidence indicating individual participation of the two appellants who were allegedly persons who had indulged into acts of arson.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 6. Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1) and Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) have made statement that appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh had sprinkled kerosene oil and appellant Arun Singh had set fire to the stacks of paddy. Their attention was drawn specifically by the defence by suggesting to them that they had never made this statement before the police. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in paragraphs 38 and 39 stated that Ram Balak Singh (P.W. 1), Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Padarath Singh (P.W. 3) had never made that statement as regards the personal act alleged against the two appellants. Thus, there is a primary flaw and deficiency in the prosecution case as regards the acceptance of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as reliable witnesses. If they had not made this vital statement during trial, then this Court is extremely disinclined to accept their evidence as that of reliable witnesses. Moreover, the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 carry some genealogical descriptions and it appears that witnesses are related to the informant besides being related inter-se between themselves. The facts of the case as emerging from evidence adduced by the prosecution definitely indicated that there was a huge number of independent persons who were the villagers who had assembled at the place of occurrence to witness the offence being committed by the accused persons. None of the independent persons came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. Some of them as appears from the evidence of these witnesses also indulged dousing the flames. They also led the police to different places as appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, but none of them were willing to come forward to support the prosecution charges. In addition to the above what appears is that the witnesses especially P.W. 6 the informant might not have been in a position to see the occurrence. P.W. 6 at paragraph 3 stated that there was a stack of straw by the side of the place of occurrence and as soon as the accused persons started firing shots or detonating bombs, the informant hid himself behind the stack of straw. If the informant had hidden behind the stack of straws as appears emerging from his own admission in paragraph 18 then there is serious doubt regarding the veracity of the whole prosecution case.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 7. The witnesses as per the First Information Report as also as per the evidence of P.W. 6 were sitting with P.W. 6 at his Darwaza and were witnessing the occurrence. The description of the Darwaza given by P.W. 6 is that the Khalihan in which the arson had taken place was situated in front of the Darwaza of the informant and the witnesses and the informant were sitting there and witnessing the occurrence. But, as I have just noted that the informant had hid himself behind the stack of straws and as such, the very basic case and the claim of witnesses that they had seen the occurrence while sitting at the Darwaza of the informant appears doubtful.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 8. These are some of the frailties in the prosecution case upon which I do not find the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellant Rabi Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Arun Singh. Their participation also appears doubtful. It was a case in which the two appellants also should have been acquitted.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.',
	(int) 8 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109