Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 409 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Daya Shankar Prasad

2008-02-26

body2008
S.K. SHARMA, J.:- This Govt. appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.6.1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (Railway) Mansi in R.P.F. Case No. 28 of 1975/Tr. No. 31 of 1993 whereby the appellant was acquitted for the charge under section 3 of the R.P, (U.P) Act. 2. The short facts leading to the case is that the prosecution report was given with regard to occurrence dated 24.8.1975 in which it was alleged that two persons namely, Ganguli Paswan and Chatur Barhi were caught after stealing coal from the Railway Engine and sold the same to opposite party Daya Shankar Prasad which was being used in his shop. From the shop of the opposite party 20 mound of Kacha Coal was seized. 3 In order to prove the case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The court after analyzing the evidence of the witnesses came to the opinion that name of Opposite party has come on the basis of confession of other two persons who were found guilty and they were ordered to be released on probation bond of Rs. 2,000/-with two sureties for being of good behavior for a period of one year. The opposite party was acquitted because the court found that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The opposite party has shown sufficient evidence to the court that he was a dealer and purchased the coal after payment of consideration amount and those receipts were also exhibited on behalf of the defence. 4. The case of the enmity was made by the opposite party to show existence of bitterness between the prosecution witnesses and the opposite party. After considering all the facts the court has acquitted the opposite party. This finding has been challenged on the ground that the Court has erred in acquitting the opposite party. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the judgment is correct and the court below appreciated the evidences in its true perspective. He further submits that the acquittal of the opposite party based on sound reasoning given by the court. 6. No doubt, the order of acquittal can be set aside but it can be set aside only if it is proved that the trial court has committed gross error in appreciation of the evidences and acted with material irregularity. He further submits that the acquittal of the opposite party based on sound reasoning given by the court. 6. No doubt, the order of acquittal can be set aside but it can be set aside only if it is proved that the trial court has committed gross error in appreciation of the evidences and acted with material irregularity. In a appeal against the acquittal the High Court re-appreciate the evidences if the evidences has rejected without any cogent reason. 7. The accused in a case of acquittal starts with double presumption in his favour firstly the presumption of innocence and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal. Therefore, two presumptions are in favour of the accused in case of Govt. Appeal against acquittal. The court, cannot interfere until it is shown conclusively that the interference of guilt is irresistible or that the finding of the lower court is not justified by the evidence. The burden is on the government to show that the acquittal is wrong. 8. In the present case the court has considered every aspects of the matter and by giving reasons had acquitted the appellant. Therefore, I am of the view that this appeal has no merit. Accordingly it is dismissed.