Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1584 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Laxmi Rai

2012-11-27

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA, J. Through Govt. Appeal (D.B.) No. 39 of 1990 and Cr. Revision No. 406 of 1990 judgment dated 9th April 1990 passed in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 1989 by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna acquitting opposite parties, namely, Laxmi Rai, Ram Janam Rai, Balkishun Rai and Ambika Rai, has been challenged. 2. Both have been ordered to be heard together because facts and laws involved in both the petitions are identical. 3. According to allegation, on 27.7.1988 at 9.30 a.m. Satnarain Singh was preparing a passage through land of Nirala Sahkari Grih Nirman Samittee situated at Digha Railway crossing and informant’s munshi Dinesh Singh ( P.W. 4), Ramesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 3), Yogesh Singh (P.W. 1) and Shambhu Singh (P.W. 2) were there. Deep Narain Singh-younger brother of the deceased came on a motor-cycle. Seven persons including Laxmi Rai, Ram Janam Rai, Bal Kishun Rai, Ambika Rai came to the place of occurrence. Three persons were unknown. At the behest of Laxmi Rai firing was resorted by Ram Janam Rai at Deep Narain Singh (deceased) which caused injury in his cheek. Three unknown persons also resorted to firing at informant but it missed. Accused Ambika Singh was threatening local people that the persons coming there would be fired. The police party was seen reaching towards the side but the culprits decamped through a jeep. Accused were chased. The informant took his injured brother to Kurji hospital but he died. 4. After institution of Patliputra P. S. Case No. 220 of 1988 under Sections 302 and other minor Sections of IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, investigation was started by P. W. 9 and after submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken. The case was committed after observing paraphernalia. Bal Kishun Rai was charged under Section 307 IPC. Ram Janam Rai, Bal Kishun Rai and Ambika Rai were charged under Sections 148 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. Ram Janam Rai was charged under Section 302 IPC for causing death of Dip Narain Singh. Laxmi Rai was further charged under Sections 302/109 and 147 IPC. Laxmi Rai, Balkishun Rai and Ambika Rai were further charged under Sections 302/149 IPC. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses. Ram Janam Rai was charged under Section 302 IPC for causing death of Dip Narain Singh. Laxmi Rai was further charged under Sections 302/109 and 147 IPC. Laxmi Rai, Balkishun Rai and Ambika Rai were further charged under Sections 302/149 IPC. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses. P. W. 1 Yogesh Singh, P. W. 2 Shambhu Singh, P. W. 3 Ramesh Kumar Singh, P. W. 4 Dinesh Singh, and P. W. 5 Satnarain Singh are said to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. P. W. 6 Uma Shankar Prasad was the doctor who had held autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 7 ASI Shaligram Upadhyay was tendered. P. W. 8 Ram Equebal Mandal was a constable who had carried the dead body for autopsy, and P. W. 9 Diwakar Prasad Singh was Investigating Officer. 6. The trial court disbelieved the prosecution version on narration of the occurrence and found the accused persons not guilty. The trial court has considered the evidence and has opined a number of contradictions between the versions of eye witnesses and medical version regarding assault. The trial court has also found that many developments were made at the stage of investigation and so it was found that the case was not proved to the hilt. It was also taken into account that not even an independent witness has been examined though it is a definite case of the prosecution that all over labourers were working. Neither even one labour was examined during investigation nor before the trial court. The definite case of the prosecution was also that road was being constructed but not even one worker was produced before Investigating Officer. It was also found that witnesses were withheld deliberately by the prosecution. 7. In a case of acquittal, if the judgment of trial court comes under challenge, the prosecution has to prove that the trial court has erred and has not appreciated the evidence correctly. If two views are possible and could be reasonable taken up then the views favouring the accused has to be taken into account that is our criminal jurisprudence. The order of conviction can only be recorded if the trial court comes to the opinion that all the evidences which have been adduced by the prosecution yield only one result showing the guilt of the accused. The order of conviction can only be recorded if the trial court comes to the opinion that all the evidences which have been adduced by the prosecution yield only one result showing the guilt of the accused. If the escape is available, then the order of conviction cannot be said to be correct and in such circumstances the benefit of gaps between the prosecution evidences has to be given to the accused and that has been correctly done by the trial court. 8. Heard the submission of learned counsel for State. No body is appearing on behalf of the petitioner in criminal revision. However, we have taken assistance and have gone through entire record and have applied our mind. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, we have come to the opinion that the trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence and has come to the opinion that the case has not been proved against the accused persons. 10. In the result, we hold that the order of trial court does not require any interference by this Court. Government Appeal and Criminal Revision are held to be without merit and they are, accordingly, dismissed.