Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1218 (PAT)

Hari Shankar Sah v. Brahmanand

2012-08-31

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. Accordingly, Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this appeal on behalf of the appellant. State is represented by Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 11th February, 2000 passed by Shri Devendra Kumar Pathak, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No. 170 of 1996/Trial No.474 of 2000 by which the respondent no. 1 has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 447, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The complaint case was filed by Hari Shankar Sah on 05.06.1996 for an occurrence which took place on 21.01.1996. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the respondent no. 1 who was posted as the Block Development Officer, along with four guards came to the shop of Hari Shankar Sah (PW 2) and is said to have abused his son Ashok Kumar who was present and looking after his shop. It is also alleged that he took out about Rs. 8,300/- from the box in the shop. 4. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence. 5. PW 1 Girija Kishore Pandey states that he had gone to purchase certain food items from the kirana shop, when he saw the Block Development Officer and his guards looting the shop, assaulting Ashok Kumar and taking away the money that was in the shop. In the cross-examination, this witness admits that he was not present inside the shop when the occurrence took place. According to him, Hari Shankar Sah was standing outside his shop when the occurrence is said to have taken place. A suggestion has been given to this witness that he has deposed at the instance of Radhey Shyam. He denies that Radhey Shyam is involved in a case which was instituted by the accused. 6. PW 2 is Hari Shankar Sah. He is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He learnt about the occurrence from his son. According to his case, he had gone outside the village at the time when the occurrence had taken place. His son had told him about the occurrence when he returned. He thereafter lodged a case on 05.02.1996. 7. PW 2 is Hari Shankar Sah. He is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He learnt about the occurrence from his son. According to his case, he had gone outside the village at the time when the occurrence had taken place. His son had told him about the occurrence when he returned. He thereafter lodged a case on 05.02.1996. 7. PW 3 Vishwanath Rawat claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. According to him, he was on the road when he saw the Block Development Officer along with his guards entering the kirana shop of Hari Shankar, assaulting the son of Hari Shankar and snatching away the money from Ashok Kumar. According to him, the Block Development Officer was checking the shop. He states that Radhey Shyam was working in the shop of Hari Shankar before the occurrence. He denies knowing anything about the case filed by the Block Development Officer against Radhey Shyam. 8. PW 4 Ashok Kumar is the victim of this case. He has supported the prosecution case. According to him, he learnt from his father after about 5-6 days that he had instituted a complaint case. 9. On behalf of the defence, the driver and the peon have been examined. Exhibits A, B and B/a have been filed to indicate that the vehicle used for the purpose of moving around is shared by the Block Development Officer and some other officers of the district. It has been specifically stated that on the date when the occurrence had taken place, the Block Development Officer was visiting the site where construction of aanganbari centre was taking place. According to the defence witnesses and the log book, he had not gone to the shop of Hari Shankar on the date of the occurrence. 10. On perusal of the prosecution and the defence witnesses, it would appear that the documents filed by the defence indicating that the vehicle was not in use of the Block Development Officer, the main accused in this case, which indicates that a false case has been filed at the instance of Radhey Shyam. The delay in filing the complaint petition is another circumstance which has been taken into consideration by the Court below for which there is no cogent explanation. Apart from these facts, the Trial Court has also taken into account the several discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. The delay in filing the complaint petition is another circumstance which has been taken into consideration by the Court below for which there is no cogent explanation. Apart from these facts, the Trial Court has also taken into account the several discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. Taking the entire evidence into account, the trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent no. 1 in this case. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. 11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.