Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 813 (JHR)

Kayum Ansari v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2005-11-22

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
By Court.- This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 9.7.1998 by which the learned trial court acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 from the charges under Sections 342, 323, 407, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the night of 22.3.1995, the petitioner has gone into his new house after taking meal and they were. sleeping there. At about midnight somebody knocked the door. At this, the petitioner asked as to who was knocking the door, whereupon opposite party no. 2 asked him that he had a very urgent work. At this, the petitioner said to have opened the door and he saw all the accused persons standing near his door. It is said that Sarik Ansari started abusing in filthy language and thereafter, the accused persons assaulted both the brothers and also threatened them with dire consequences. Thereafter they started demolishing the house of the petitioner and they badly damaged the house. They also threatened the petitioner not to inform the police. On hulla raised by the petitioner, several villagers came there and thereafter he went to the police station and lodged the case. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, altogether nine witnesses were examined and on behalf of defence, evidences were also adduced, both oral and documentary. 4. From the impugned judgment, I find that the learned Magistrate after discussing the entire materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. 5. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting my attention to paragraph no. 13 of the impugned judgment submitted that though the independent witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, but the trial court wrongly acquitted the accused persons from the charges on the ground that no independent witness was examined. 6. I have minutely perused paragraph no. 13 of the impugned judgment and I find that the learned Magistrate has rightly held for the reasons recorded therein that the prosecution was not able to prove the charges against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7/accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. 6. I have minutely perused paragraph no. 13 of the impugned judgment and I find that the learned Magistrate has rightly held for the reasons recorded therein that the prosecution was not able to prove the charges against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7/accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment by which the opposite parties were acquitted from the charges by the trial court and therefore, there having found no merit in this revision application, the same is dismissed.