Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1668 (PAT)

Pradeep Rai v. State of Bihar

2012-12-11

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT 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 on 22.4.2003 in S.L.A. No. 84 of 2001. The appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 29th August, 2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vaishali (Hajipur) in Complaint Case No. 1412 of 1997 corresponding to Tr. No. 316 of 2001, by which, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the original respondent nos. 2 and 3. During pendency of the appeal, respondent no. 3 died and, as such, by order dated 14.8.2003 passed by this Court, the appeal against him abated. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant talked to the accused persons for purchase of land. There was negotiation between the parties. The accused persons became ready to sell the land measuring 15 dhoors in plot No. 1000 at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per dhoor. The land in question was just by the side of the road. While negotiation was being made between the parties, some witnesses were also present. The accused persons told that they were in urgent need of money in order to start a business in Delhi. The complainant, believing upon the accused persons, paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash to them as advance. The accused persons despite repeated assurance evaded to execute the sale deed on one pretext or another. Ultimately, on 29.7.1997 at about 5 p.m., the complainant along with witnesses went to the accused and demanded back the money advanced to them. The accused persons failed to return the money. The complainant insisted that he would not go back without taking the amount. This created annoyance to the accused persons. They abused the complainant, assaulted him by fist and slaps, tore his “Kurta” and snatched his H.M.T. wrist watch. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the complaint was registered. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. In course of inquiry, some witnesses were examined. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the accused persons were summoned to face trial. The learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused persons under Sections 323, 379, 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the accused persons were summoned to face trial. The learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused persons under Sections 323, 379, 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In course of trial, altogether five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them, P.W. 3 Nirdhan Rai did not turn up for cross-examination and, as such, his evidence has been discarded by the court below. The court below after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused persons giving them benefit of doubt. 5. From the evidence on record, it transpires that there was no written agreement between the parties. As alleged by the prosecution, on the basis of an oral agreement, the complainant was insisting for executing sale deed. The complainant does not make any averment so as to infer any fraudulent or dishonest intention having been made by the accused persons pursuant to which, he parted with the money. It is not the case of the appellant that the accused persons were not possessing the property or that they were not competent to enter into an agreement to sell or could not have transferred the title in the property to the appellant. Merely because an oral agreement to sell was entered into, which agreement the accused persons failed to honour, it cannot be said that they had cheated the appellant. No case for prosecution under Sections 420 or 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out even prima facie. 6. The case of the defence is that there was no agreement between the parties at all. The complainant had never paid any money as advance for execution of sale deed. 7. The allegations so far as abusing the complainant, assaulting him or snatching his wrist watch are concerned, on appreciation of evidence, I find major contradiction in the statement of witnesses. The complainant, in cross-examination, admits that before making payment of the advance amount, he had not seen documents relating to the land, whereas, P.Ws. 1, 2 & 4 in their deposition state that, as a matter of fact, they had seen the documents relating to the land in presence of the complainant before payment of advance amount by the complainant to the accused persons. 1, 2 & 4 in their deposition state that, as a matter of fact, they had seen the documents relating to the land in presence of the complainant before payment of advance amount by the complainant to the accused persons. Such contradictory stand of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution makes the whole case unreliable. There is no documentary evidence to support the injury sustained by the complainant. The prosecution has also not produced any document of the wrist watch which is alleged to have been snatched by the accused persons. 8. Such being the quality of evidence, in my view, the trial court has committed no illegality in holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home its charges. I find that the trial Magistrate has recorded clear, cogent and convincing reasons in recording the acquittal. The findings of the trial court are neither erroneous nor perverse. 9. I, thus, find no merit in the present appeal. It is dismissed, accordingly.