ARJUN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals have a common matrix and judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. By the impugned judgment, the State's appeal was dismissed while in the case of present appellants their conviction was altered from Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') to Section 395 IPC. The sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life was altered to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:

(3.) In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even in the FIR there was no consistency. Though certain persons were named and overt acts were attributed to them the evidence in Court was at variance with the statement. So far as the appellant Bindeshwari Rao is concerned, it is submitted that though he was named in the FIR, the role attributed to him was not specific. It was also submitted that most of the appellants have suffered sentence of nearly 4= years and considering the long passage of time, the sentence should be suitably reduced. In the case of accused appellant Bindeshwari Rao, it is submitted that though he has suffered custody for about one year, considering the unclear role attributed to him by the prosecution his case deserves sympathetic consideration. Witnesses were related to the deceased and their evidence should not be accepted particularly even two of them were dis- believed and the role of Dr. Shamim Ahmad Khan which was so eloquently stated by the witnesses has been discarded.