Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1622 (PAT)

Ram Pavitar Rai v. State of Bihar

2012-12-04

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in pursuance of the leave granted by this Court in S.L.A. No. 90 of 2001. The appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.9.2001 passed by Sri C.S. Pradhan, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. C-662/1998 /Tr. No. 241/2001, by which, he has acquitted Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 (for short the accused) from the charges levelled against them. 2. In the aforesaid complaint case, the accused persons were charged for the offence punishable under Ss. 147, 323, 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Accused Ram Sakal Rai was also separately charged under Section 379, IPC for the theft of Rs. 50/-. 3. The appellant (for short the complainant) had filed a complaint petition in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai on 29.6.1998 with respect to an occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 28.6.1998 at about 9.30 a.m. It has been alleged in the complaint that on the relevant date and time of occurrence when the complainant went to look after his land, he saw the accused persons engaged in plucking Jackfruits from the tree standing on his land. The complainant protested. However, the accused persons surrounded him and they started assaulting him by slaps and fist. There is a specific allegation that the accused Ram Pramod Rai gave a Katta blow upon the complainants neck. However, the complainant, in order to save himself raised his hand, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his left palm and near the thumb. In the meantime, the accused Chano Rai ordered to kill the complainant. He striked an iron rod on the complainants head. However, the complainant, somehow, managed to save his head but, the iron rod hurled by the accused Chano Rai, hit him on his back. The accused Ram Kailash Rai was exhorting others to kill the complainant. It has also been alleged that the accused persons carried away almost 40 jackfruits worth Rs. 500/-. When the complainant raised hulla, witnesses Ram Binay Rai and Rajeev Kumar came to rescue him but the accused persons assaulted him too by lathi, slaps and fist. The accused Ram Kailash Rai was exhorting others to kill the complainant. It has also been alleged that the accused persons carried away almost 40 jackfruits worth Rs. 500/-. When the complainant raised hulla, witnesses Ram Binay Rai and Rajeev Kumar came to rescue him but the accused persons assaulted him too by lathi, slaps and fist. The accused persons tore the Kurta of the complainant and from the pocket of Rajeev Kumar, the accused Ram Sakal alias Jodhu Rai took away Rs. 50/-. The complainant alleges that immediately after the occurrence, he went to the police but, since the Officer-in-Charge was not present in the police station, he went to the Sadar Hospital, Begusarai for treatment. The complainant has given detail of the land in question in the complaint petition. An assertion has been made in the complaint that the accused persons had no concern with the alleged land in question and the complainant was coming in possession of the land in question since the date of its purchase. 4. The complainant was examined on oath. In course of inquiry, some witnesses were also examined on behalf of the complainant. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The learned Magistrate, who held the trial, framed charges in the manner indicated, hereinabove. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, in order to prove the charges, the complainant has examined altogether six witnesses. P.W. 1 Ashok Kumar Rai, P.W. 2 Shiv Chandra Rai and P.W. 3 Ram Binay Rai are witnesses to the occurrence. 6. As per complaint, P.W. 3 Ram Binay Rai was also assaulted by the accused persons. P.W. 4 Ram Pavitar Rai is the complainant, P.W. 5 Bipin Paswan is a formal witness, who has proved sale deed of the land in question, which has been marked as Ext.-1 in course of trial. P.W. 6 Dr. M.R. Mustafa is the doctor, who is said to have examined the complainant at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai. He has proved an out-door slip, which has been marked as Ext.-2 in course of trial. 7. On behalf of the defence, one witness, namely, Balmiki Singh has been examined. P.W. 6 Dr. M.R. Mustafa is the doctor, who is said to have examined the complainant at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai. He has proved an out-door slip, which has been marked as Ext.-2 in course of trial. 7. On behalf of the defence, one witness, namely, Balmiki Singh has been examined. He is also a formal witness who has proved several documents in course of trial which includes formal F.I.R. of Birpur P.S. Case No. 192 of 1998 (marked as Ext.-A), charge-sheet of Birpur P.S. Case No. 192 of 1998 (marked as Ext.-B) and the sale deed with respect to the land in question (marked as Ext.-C). 8. I have heard Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons and perused the records of the case. 9. I find that the complainant Ram Pavitar Rai (P.W.4), in course of cross-examination, admits that one of the accused, namely, Chano had filed Birpur P.S. Case No. 192 of 1998 for an occurrence which is said to have taken place on the same date, time and at the same place. 10. I further find that there is consistent evidence that Ram Pramod gave a Katta blow on left hand of the complainant whereas, the accused Chano Rai gave an iron rod blow on the back of the complainant. The complainant alleges that he went to Begusarai Sadar Hospital and got himself treated there. However, there is no injury report on the record. The doctor, who is said to have examined the complainant, admits in cross-examination that he had not issued any injury report. One out-door slip has been brought on record and marked as Ext.-2. The same does not reflect that the victim sustained any injury on the back. Two other co-accused persons, namely, Ram Binay Rai and Rajeev Rai are alleged to have been assaulted by the accused persons. One of them, Rajeev Kumar has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution in course of trial. The prosecution has given no explanation for his non-examination. So far as Ram Binay Rai is concerned, he has been examined as prosecution witness No. 3 but, no injury report, showing any injury on his person, has been brought on record. 11. I further find that both the parties claim ownership of the land in question. The prosecution has given no explanation for his non-examination. So far as Ram Binay Rai is concerned, he has been examined as prosecution witness No. 3 but, no injury report, showing any injury on his person, has been brought on record. 11. I further find that both the parties claim ownership of the land in question. Both of them have filed registered deed in order to support their claim over the land in question. However, surprisingly in none of the sale deeds there is any mention that a Jack tree was standing on the land in question. 12. The trial court has taken note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case. It has recorded clear, cogent and convincing reasons in recording acquittal. The findings of the trial court are neither erroneous nor perverse. 13. Having considered the materials on record, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. It is dismissed, accordingly. Appeal dismissed.