Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 865 (JHR)

Dilchand Bhagat v. State of Bihar

2005-12-16

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
Judgment Amareshwar Sahay, J.- This Revision Application has been preferred at the instance of the informant against the Judgment acquittal dated 24.6.1998 passed by 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 1994 whereby, the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Chatra acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 3.12.1991, at about 5:00 A.M., the accused persons having armed with Garasa and Lathi came to the house of the informant Dilchand Bhagat (P.W.6) and thereafter, the accused Bhuneshwar Bhagat and Ashok Bhagat who were having Garasa in their hand, started assaulting upon him causing injuries to his right canthus while the accused Ramdas Bhagat, Madho Bhagat, Dhaneshwar Bhagat, Matuk Bhagat, Kailash Bhagat, Suraj Bhagat, Lakhan Bhagat, Mohan Bhagat, Harihar Bhagat, America Bhagat, Dwarika Bhagat and Daso Bhagat, who were armed with Lathi, assaulted Ganga Bhagat, Tejni Devi, Shambhu Bhagat and Jagdish Bhagat causing injuries on their persons. It is said that the accused Ashok Bhagat Assaulted Tejni Devi with Garasa as a result of which, her nose was cut while the accused Bhuneshwar Bhagat hit the informant with Garasa on his Canthus. 3. With regard to the same very occurrence, another case being Chatra P.S. Case No. 165/91 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149,307,324,323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of the informant Ashok Bhagat, opposite party no. 3 herein, against Ganga Bhagat, Dilchand Bhagat (present petitioner), Sheo Charan Bhagat, Shambhu Bhagat, Jagdish Bhagat and Arjun Bhagat. The trial of the said case being S. T. No. 610/93 was also conducted by the same trial Court and by Judgment delivered on the same very date i.e. 24.6.1998, the trial Court found the accused persons guilty for the offence but released the accused persons giving them the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 4. So far the present case is concerned, it appears that during trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and on behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined. 4. So far the present case is concerned, it appears that during trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and on behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined. The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the materials on record, acquitted the accused persons holding that the story put forward by the prosecution was quite unreasonable and that the prosecution party was aggressor and they took the law in their hands as a result of which, the case and counter case crept in and the injuries sustained by the informant party could have been caused by the accused persons in the right of their private defence. 5. Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the findings of the trial Court on the ground that the finding of the trial Court that prosecution party was the aggressor, is not based on record. He further submitted that since the accused persons denied the occurrence itself and therefore, there was no question of their having right of private defence, as has been held by the learned trial Court. He further submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused persons but the learned trial Court wrongly and illegally acquitted the accused persons. 6. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the accused/ opposite parties, has submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused opposite party from the charges levelled against them. He further submitted that it is a well settled law that the Revisional Jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts, should not be lightly exercised particularly when it is invoked by the private party. The Revisional Jurisdiction has to be exercised by the High Courts only in a very exceptional case when the High Court finds defects or manifest error of law flagrantly in miscarriage of justice and in the present case neither there is any manifest error nor there is any miscarriage of justice. In support of his submission, Mr. Dubey relied upon a Judgment reported in AIR 1994 SC 26 and (2005)5 JLJR 123(SC). 7. Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken me to the evidence adduced by the prosecution in great details. The submission of Mr. In support of his submission, Mr. Dubey relied upon a Judgment reported in AIR 1994 SC 26 and (2005)5 JLJR 123(SC). 7. Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken me to the evidence adduced by the prosecution in great details. The submission of Mr. Sinha is to re-appreciate the evidence and to upset the findings of trial Court. The matter of re-appreciation of evidence, in exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction against an Order of acquittal is not permissible in absence of any glaring feature leading to gross miscarriage of justice. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of State of Kerala vs. Puttumana lIIath Jathavedan Namboodiri reported in AIR 1999 SC 981 . 8. In the present case, I find that the learned trial Court has very elaborately dealt with oral and documentary evidence on record and after critical examination of the same, he has come to the finding on the 'question of fact that the prosecution party was aggressor. In my view, the said finding of fact neither can be said to be manifest error nor do I find any material which can lead to the fact that there is glaring miscarriage of justice and therefore, the findings on facts based on appreciation of evidence cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction and this Court cannot substitute its own finding on re-appreciation of the evidence. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and hence having found no merit in this revision application, the same is dismissed.