Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1323 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Om Prakash Sah

2012-09-18

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA 1. Cr. Revision No. 691 of 1989 has been tagged for hearing along with this Govt. Appeal (DB) No. 48 of 1989 and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the above cases have been filed against the judgment dated 22.08.1989 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 845 of 1986 whereby all the eight accused persons namely, Om Prakash Sah, Gauri Sah,Suresh Sah, Ranjiet Sah, Ramswarup Sah , Bishundeo Sah, Brahmdeo Sah and Prabhu Sah (opposite party no.2 to 9 in Cr.Revision No. 691 of 1989) have been acquitted of the charges. 3. The informant Sunil Sah (P.W.6) stated on 25.06.1986 at 5.00 P.M. before the Officer-in-charge in Sadar Hospital, Munger that at preceding 3.00 P.M., he was going to the betel shop of his Kishto Sah and when he reached near the house of accused Ramswarup Sah, he was abused by Om Prakash Sah. When he objected it, Om Prakash Sah started assaulting him. The informant raised hulla, upon which his brother Kishto Sah came and when he tried to rescue him, he and informant both were assaulted by Ranjeet Sah, Ramswarup Sah, Suresh Sah and Gauri Sah by lathi and brick bats. Thereafter many villagers namely, Rajendra Sah (PW3), Om Prakash Chaudhary (P.W.7), Ramdeo Tanti (P.W.5) and others came and witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter the accused persons escaped. A case bearing Kotwali P.S.Case No. 223 dated 25.06.1986 under Sections 147,323 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered but on the next day injured Keshto Sah died. Hence Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted, Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions where charges under Sections 302 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against accused Om Prakash Sao and charges under Sections 147,323 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against all the eight accused persons namely, Gauri Sao, Suresh Sao, Ranjit Sao, Ramswarup Sao, Bishundeo Sao, Brahmdeo Sah, Prabhu Sao and Om Prakash Sao. Charges were explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded innocence. Hence trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses. Charges were explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded innocence. Hence trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses. They are : P.W.1 Md.Hasan, P.W.2 Dr.Sakranand Prasad, P.W.3 Rajendra Sah, P.W.4 Kushami Devi, P.W.5 Ramdeo Tanti, P.W.6 Sunil Sah, P.W.7 Om Prakash, P.W.8 Dilip Prasad Gupta, P.W.9 Harendra Singh and P.W.10 Dr.Nand Kishore Sinha. 5. The defence also examined three witnesses. They are : D.W.1 Charitar Rabidas, D.W.2 Sita ram and D.W.3 Sachchidanand Prasad. 6. The prosecution and the defence both exhibited some documents. 7. The trial court analyzed the evidences and the documents on record and found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and hence order of acquittal was passed and that has been challenged here. 8. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing in Govt. Appeal and nobody responded on behalf of the respondents. So we decided to dispose of the Govt. appeal and the Cr. revision after hearing learned counsel appearing for the State and after perusing the lower court records and the judgment impugned. 9. P.Ws. 3, 5 and 7 were named as witnesses in the fardbeyan whereas P.Ws 1 and 4 were not named as witness in the fardbeyan. P.W.8 was tendered The trial court found that except P.W.6, the informant, no other witnesses have stated about the assault by Bishundeo Sah, Brahmdeo Saho and Prabhu Sah. Their names were not mentioned in the fardbeyan. 10. One fact which came on record was that Ranjit Sah, Neelam Kumari and Dukhni Devi were the persons of the defence who also sustained injuries for which Kotwali P.S. Case No. 224 of 1986 was registered and that injuries were not explained. The trial court found that it was deliberately suppressed by the prosecution that Ranjit Sah, Neelam Kumari and Dukhni Devi were sustained injuries. The manner of occurrence has not been clearly brought on record. The informant (P.W.6) has admitted the enmity. Once the injury on the other side was not found to be explained, then the genesis of the case itself was found to be doubtful. There were other contradictions also. Three accused namely, Bishundeo Sah, Brahmdeo Sah and Prabhu Sah were subsequently named by the informant. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 have not named them. D.Ws. Once the injury on the other side was not found to be explained, then the genesis of the case itself was found to be doubtful. There were other contradictions also. Three accused namely, Bishundeo Sah, Brahmdeo Sah and Prabhu Sah were subsequently named by the informant. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 have not named them. D.Ws. 1 and 2 have exhibited the attendance registers of Jamalpur Workshop of Railway which have established the presence of accused Bishundeo Sah in the workshop, meaning thereby that he was on duty on the date and time of occurrence. It was also found that the brick-bats were not seized by the Investigating Officer though the case was that the brick-bats were used in causing assault. There was no consistent evidence with regard to manner of assault. 11. If doubt was found by the trial court, then there was no option to it at all but to acquit the accused persons. If a doubt is created, then, according to criminal jurisprudence, in criminal cases it goes in favour of the accused persons. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and if the shadow of doubt is found to be moving round the prosecution case and where a doubt is to be perceived, then it has to be passed in favour of the accused persons. In our view, the judgment of acquittal is neither perverse nor illegal, so it requires no interference by this Court. 12. In the result, Govt. Appeal and Cr. Revision both are dismissed. Appeal Revision dismissed.