Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 181 (JHR)

Vijay Singh v. Jaswant Singh

2010-02-01

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDEMENT Nobody appears on behalf of the complainant-appellant on repeated call. On the request of the Court, Mr. Ayush appeared on behalf of the complainant-appellant. Heard learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.6.1997 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1993, by which judgment, the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted all the opposite parties. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellate court that in spite of evidences produced in the case, he has acquitted the accused persons from the charges. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has stated that learned 1st Additional Sessions, Judge, Chatra, after going through the evidences, has found that there was only four witnesses in the prosecution case and out of four witnesses, the two witnesses namely P.W.3, Uttim Bhuyian and P.W. 4, Bichhuwa Bhuyian supported the same. They 'were not produced by the complainant for their cross-examination after charges were framed against them. Two named witnesses in complaint Mr. Ram Lakhan Singh and Amir Singh were not examined by the prosecution, and moreover, the person, who had purchased the pumping set said that the theft article was purchased by Sri Nakul Singh, own brother of the informant-complainant. He was also not examined by the prosecution, and as such, learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the records, I find that the complainant, Bijoy Singh lodged a complaint case on 7.10.1984 stating therein that he was irrigating his paddy crops by a pumping set purchased by him having bearing no. 30013179 and engine no. 2175, when the members of opposite parties-accused came there and after abusing him removed the same. Police started investigation on the said F.I.R. of theft and finding the case not true submitted final form, where the protest-cum-complaint petition was filed by the learned S.D.J.M., Chatra having Complaint No. 132/84. 30013179 and engine no. 2175, when the members of opposite parties-accused came there and after abusing him removed the same. Police started investigation on the said F.I.R. of theft and finding the case not true submitted final form, where the protest-cum-complaint petition was filed by the learned S.D.J.M., Chatra having Complaint No. 132/84. The learned S.D.J.M., Chatra during enquiry under ,Section 202 of Cr.P.C. after examining the prosecution witness, as also the opposite party Shaligram Singh found the defence true and dismissed the complaint The complainant filed the criminal revision, there after on remand by Sessions Judge, the court of learned S.D.J.M., took cognizance and the case was tried by the Gopal Kumar Roy, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra, who found the accused guilty on the basis of the evidences and sentenced the respondents for one month simple imprisonment under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code, three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 379 and three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 to the sole accused Shaligram Singh. Again, an appeal was filed by the accused persons before the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra, by his impugned judgment, again acquitted the accused persons and found the case to be false. Then the complainant again filed this appeal. 6. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. However with the help of the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as Amicus Curiae, I also find that the two main witnesses namely P.W. 3, Uttim Bhuyian and P.W. 4, Bichhuwa Bhuyian were not produced for cross-examination after the charges were framed and their evidences before the charge cannot be considered under Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act, since, they were knowingly not produced by the prosecution for cross-examination. Moreover, the appellant Shaligram Singh denied the receipt granted by him i.e. Ext.-1 and stated that the theft was committed, while the complainant stated that it was purchased by his brother Nakul Singh. But, the said Nakul Singh was also not examined by the prosecution. 7. In that view of the matter, the entire prosecution case has become doubtful and the appellate court has rightly acquitted the respondents. . 8. I find no merit in this Complaint Appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.