Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1378 (PAT)

Amrendra Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-12-05

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants have been convicted under Section 323/34, IPC and sentenced to S.I. for one month by a judgment dated 16.1.2002 passed by the ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Saran, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 336 of 1990/279 of 2001. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant Harihar Bhakta is that on the date of occurrence the accused persons came to his house and asked him to register 10-12 students of First Year Arts. The informant stated that he required certain documents and it was not possible for him to do so. At this, the accused persons got angry and assaulted him with fists and slaps, on account of which he was injured. 3. During trial the prosecution examined four witnesses in all. Out of whom, PW 3 Harihar Bhakta is the informant. PW 1 Mannan Singh and PW 2 Chandi Dutta Ojha were the Professors of Rajendra College, Chapra, who turned hostile and PW 4 Amrendra Narain Rai was a tutor, who also turned hostile. 4. The case dependent on the sole evidence of PW 3 Harihar Bhakta, who the Pro Vice-Chancellor of L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. He stated in his evidence that on 7.10.1988 while he was at his residence at Professors Colony the accused persons along with other persons came to his house and started pressing him for registration of 10-12 students of Arts Class. He expressed his inability to do so as he had already submitted registration chart to the Principal of the College. At this, the accused persons pressed him to do so by saying that the Principal would have no objection if he did the same. When he still refused, the appellant Suresh Prasad Yadav slapped him, on account of which he sustained bleeding injuries on his nose. When his son Abhay Kumar intervened, appellant Suresh Prasad Yadav rushed towards him for inflicting chhura blow but he was saved. He stated that the occurrence had been witnessed by PW 1 and PW 2, who however did not support the case of the prosecution. 5. I find that unfortunately this witness was not cross-examined by the appellants for whatever reason. However to do complete justice, I would be required to examine as to whether the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. I find that unfortunately this witness was not cross-examined by the appellants for whatever reason. However to do complete justice, I would be required to examine as to whether the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, I find that neither the Investigating Officer nor the doctor has been examined independently to corroborate the prosecution case. Since it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellants on the sole testimony of the informant, I am inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellants. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 16.1.2002 by the ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Saran, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 336 of 1990/279 of 2001 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Appeal allowed.