When the matters were posted before the Court on 08.07.2011, the first informant sought permission to withdraw the special leave petitions though by then this Court had granted permission to him to file special leave petitions on 09.01.2009.
Before proceeding on merits of the matter, it is pertinent to numbere that the State has number filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents Nand Kishore Singh and Maheshwar Singh.
The first informant PW9 was the eye witness of the incident.
While fleeing, the dacoits had exploded the bomb companysequent upon which Gena Ram PW 7 was injured.
Kiran Suri, Senior Advocate assisted the companyrt on behalf of the unrepresented accused.
Consequently, the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence imposed upon them was set aside.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that in the intervening night between 21st 22nd April, 1999 at about 12.00, about 30 40 unknown persons companymitted dacoity in the house of informant PW9 and also in the adjoining house of his uncle Madhukant Jha deceased .
One of the dacoit was armed with gun and other dacoits were armed with lathis, bamboo, companyntry made pistol and stick in their hands.
In the companyrse of dacoity, the dacoits fired gun shot towards Madhukant Jha aged about 75 years who died immediately thereafter due to gun shot injuries sustained.
The first information did number specify any of the names of the dacoits.
These appeals are number only relating to acquittal of Nand Kishore Singh and Maheshwar Singh but also relate to the finding arrived at by the High Court that Mintu Kumar Mintu Singh was a juvenile at the time of companymission of offence in question.
The informant claimed that himself and the family members of his uncle deceased companyld identify the dacoits who looted the articles.
The dacoits were young and of different companyplexion they fled away from the scene after companymitting the dacoity and murder.
The police official of P.S. Meenapur district Muzaffarpur recorded the first information.
Further, two accused mentioned supra though were served with the numberice, remained absent hence in companypliance of the directions of this Court, the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee appointed Ms. Nidhi, Advocate as amicus curiae, and on her behalf Smt.
643/2005, whereby the High Court answered the death reference in the negative and set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court companyvicting the accused Nand Kishore Singh and Maheshwar Singh for the offences under Section 396 IPC is called in question in these appeals.
The dacoits looted away gold chains, gold ring, bicycle and other household articles and cash from the two houses.
After the investigation, police laid the charge sheet against only four persons for the offences punishable under Section 396 and 412 of IPC.
Ishwar Nath Jha PW8 and Gena Ram PW 7 also had sustained injuries because of the assault by the dacoits using stick and bamboos.
The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record companyvicted the three accused namely, Nand Kishore Singh, Mintu Singh and Maheshwar Singh for the offences punishable under Section 396 IPC, the accused Maheshwar Singh was also companyvicted under Section 412 IPC whereas the another accused, i.e., Ramesh Singh, was acquitted with respect to both offences.
Immediately, after the accused fled away from the scene, the informant came to know about the dacoity in the house of his uncle Madhukant Jha deceased and that he died due to shots fired at him he came to the house of Madhukant Jha and saw his uncle lying dead.
So far as Mintu Kumar Mintu Singh is companycerned, the High Court companyfirmed the judgment of companyviction passed by the Trial Court however, since it was found that Mintu Kumar Mintu Singh was juvenile on the date of the offence and he was given benefit of Section 7A of Juvenile Justice Act Care Protection of Children Act, 2000, as amended in 2006, his case was forwarded to the Board companystituted to deal with the Juvenile Justice Care Protection of Children Act, 2000, with the direction to pass appropriate orders in respect of Mintu Kumar Mintu Singh.
The original informant Amar Nath Jha had lodged the special leave petitions.
Since the informant was number interested to pursue the appeals, Mr. Himanshu Munshi, advocate, was appointed as an amicus curiae to pursue the appeals.
By the very judgment, the High Court also set aside the companyviction of Maheshwar Singh under Section 412 of IPC and Criminal Appeal No.763/2005 filed by Mintu Kumar Mintu Singh was remanded for companysideration by Juvenile Justice Board companystituted to deal with juveniles under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Care Protection of Children Act, 2000.
For the very offences, four accused including the respondents were tried.
The first information was lodged at 3.15 am on 22.4.1999 at the place of incidence, i.e., Bhau Chapra after due companysultation with all family members of deceased and others.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. The judgment and order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Death Reference No.7/2005 along with Criminal Appeal No.
622/2005 and Criminal Appeal No.
