Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1317 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Ajar Nath Mukhiya

2012-09-14

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2012
Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. – Cr.Revision No. 32 of 1994 has been tagged with this Govt..Appeal No. 14 of 1994 for hearing and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the above cases have been filed against judgment dated 18.10.1993 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaira in Sessions Case No. 176 of 1992 whereby the accused persons namely, Ajar Nath Mukhiya, Kapildeo Mukhiya @ Kokai Mukhiya, Ramchandra Mukhiya and Balwa Sahani, have been acquitted of the charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27/34 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. For the last two and half decades, when the deceased Jaleshwar Singh, a man of Chhapra District, started living in Pucca Basa in village Ratnaha under Alouli police station, District Khagaria, the informant Lakhiya Devi was also living with him as maidservant and concubine. On 27.3.1993 at 4.00 P.M. while the informant was sitting along with the deceased in the sahan of Basa she saw the accused persons. About 9.00 P.M. when the deceased was having some abdominal pain, the informant closed the door from inside. But after ten minutes Suresh Yadav (P.W.1) who was sleeping in the sahan of Basa, knocked the door and said that some one had come to meet Jaleshwar Singh, then informant told him about ailment of Jaleshwar Singh. When another man came Jaleshwar Singh came out from the Basa and Jaleshwar Singh talked him who told that he has arranged a party. Jaleshwar Singh accompanied him. That man was Balwa Sahani and was having a pistol in his hand. This was seen by the informant as she had followed them. Sometime thereafter, the informant saw Ajarnath Mukhiya, Kapildeo Mukhiya alias Kokai Mukhiya, Ram Chandra Mukhiya besides two or three others coming out from the maize field. Ajarnath Mukhiya took gamchha of Balwa Sahani and wrapped it in the neck of Jaleshwar Singh and all the accused persons dragged him towards east. The informant saw all these in the torch light flashed by the accused persons. After a while there were two or three firings. Thereafter the informant fled towards the village raising alarm. Thereafter villagers came and after search they found the dead body of Jaleshwar Singh on a ridge. The informant saw all these in the torch light flashed by the accused persons. After a while there were two or three firings. Thereafter the informant fled towards the village raising alarm. Thereafter villagers came and after search they found the dead body of Jaleshwar Singh on a ridge. The motive of the occurrence was that accused Ajarnath Mukhiya who was cousin of the informant disliked the living of the informant with the deceased as maidservant and concubine. The informant thereafter gave her fardbeyan before the police and a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act was registered. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. After cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions where charges were framed and explained to the accused person who pleaded innocence and hence trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial, the witnesses were examined. The trial court after analyzing the evidences did not find enough evidence to connect the accused persons with the offence alleged and noted in the judgment that the Police did not record the F.I.R. in its proper form, the investigation was not done in proper way, Investigating Officer did not mention the full boundary either of the Basa of the deceased or the place where the dead body of the deceased was found, statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were sketchy which did not make out as to what extent they have seen the occurrence in the night and no trampling mark of crops was mentioned. All these were enough before the trial court to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor who filed the Govt. Appeal has submitted that the order of acquittal under appeal and revision was not correct. 6. In Govt. Appeal, it appears that the accused persons were not given notice. In revision application, they have been noticed and appeared through vakalatnama but did not take care to appear at the time of hearing. 7. We have gone through the impugned order. The order of acquittal can be interfered with if it is shown that judgment is beyond record as the depositions of the witnesses have not been properly assessed. From the judgment it appears that the trial court has given good reason to come to its conclusion. 7. We have gone through the impugned order. The order of acquittal can be interfered with if it is shown that judgment is beyond record as the depositions of the witnesses have not been properly assessed. From the judgment it appears that the trial court has given good reason to come to its conclusion. When two views are available, then the principle of equity can be applicable and the benefit of doubt is to go in favour of the accused. In our view, the impugned judgment is neither perverse nor illegal and it needs no interference by this Court. 8. In the result, Govt. Appeal and the Cr. revision both are without merit and are accordingly dismissed.