Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1690 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Arjun Yadav

2012-12-14

MANDHATA SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Prosecution case initiated on a written complaint of the informant Bhim Paswan, in brief, is that accused respondents were intending to dispossess him and his family members from Basgit land to grab the same. On 9.4.2003 at about 1.45 PM three of the accused persons namely Sogan Yadav, Balo Yadav and Arjun Yadav came to the house of informant’s father, assaulted him, set his house on fire and threw his father also in fire with intention to kill him. He was admitted to Hospital and struggling with life and death for which Chautham P. S. Case No. 61/03 was lodged. 2. After the occurrence of above case, all the accused persons came to the house of the informant, asked him with threatening to withdraw the case otherwise to face consequences of his father in abusive language specifying ‘Matherchod Dusadh’. Village people gathered and pacified accused persons who left the place of occurrence. 3. Trial is ended in acquittal of all the accused persons by the impugned judgment dated 28.2.2007, validity of which has been questioned through filing this appeal by the State Govt. 4. In all seven witnesses are examined in the case. Of them P.Ws 5, 6 and 7 state to know nothing about the incident. They have been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution but of no avail as in cross-examination also nothing has appeared to corroborate the prosecution case. 5. P.W.2 is a witness to state that he was not in the village on the day of occurrence rather heard the incident later. So he is also of no use to favour the prosecution case. P.W.1 along with 3 and 4 are there to state that threatening was given by accused persons to withdraw the earlier filed case. Of them P.W.1 states nothing on the point of abuse for which charges are framed either under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code or under section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Then P.Ws 3 and 4 remain to state that abuse in name of informant’s caste Dusadh followed by some abuse was given by accused persons. 6. Enmity is admitted in the case and the reason behind the incident was threatening to withdraw the earlier case filed against three of the accused persons. 7. Then P.Ws 3 and 4 remain to state that abuse in name of informant’s caste Dusadh followed by some abuse was given by accused persons. 6. Enmity is admitted in the case and the reason behind the incident was threatening to withdraw the earlier case filed against three of the accused persons. 7. In such circumstance, a care is needed to scrutinize cautiously the statement of these witnesses to believe but their statement is vague without specifying any name. Abuse in name of Dusadh with threatening given by all the accused persons which I think is not possible. Six persons at a time will use some language for abuse and threatening is not possible. Apart from it, P.W.3 in paragraph 9 of her cross-examination states about remaining in hospital with her husband for 15 days who was admitted there after the earlier incident which took place on 14.4.2003 in between 15 days, so her presence to her house is not probable. 8. No doubt statement of victim is more reliable but in case injury is caused to him. In this case no injury is caused so, non-examination of independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution case has also to play a vital role which has been taken into consideration by the trial court. 9. Finding no mistake committed by the trial court in its judgment and order dated 28.2.2007 in Sessions Case no. 146/04 in acquitting all the accused persons the Govt. appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.