JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.8.999 passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gaya in Cr. Appeal No. 6/95/ 42/99. confirming the judgment rendered, by the trial court dated 9.3.95 in GR Case No. 1678/92, trial No. 188/95. Revisionist was convicted under Section 414. IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year.

(2.) It has been submitted by the revisionist lawyer that only 3 witnesses have been examined and the IO was not examined and the seizure was prepared in absence of the revisionist. There was no report of theft regarding seized article which consisted of 23 bags of "DARA" meant for the Child Development Project of Amas block in the district of Gaya.

(3.) I find that 3 witnesses have been examined, out of them PWs 1 and 2 are so called seizure list witnesses and these witnesses admitted there signature on the seizure list, but they denied that they had made any statement before the police. So they have been declared hostile by the prosecution and in cross- examination by the latter they admitted to have witnessed the seizure of 23 bags of DARA from the mill of the revisionist. However. in cross-examination by the accused, they said that their signatures were obtained on the seizure list at Health Centre by the side of the mill and nothing was seized in their presence. However, the court relied on their statement in cross- examination by the prosecution that the seizure was made in their presence. However. I am of the opinion that when the witnesses made contradictory statements, no reliance can be placed on their testimony.