Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 176 (PAT)

Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar

2013-02-06

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, V.N.SINHA

body2013
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. Appellant is the informant of Mairwa P.S. Case No. 32 of 2000, G.R. No. 905 of 2000 registered for the offence under Sections 302/109/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. He has filed this appeal assailing the judgment dated 19.5.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 421 of 2007 whereunder prosecution case set out in the aforesaid Mairwa P.S. Case No. 32 of 2000 has been rejected holding that prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against Respondent nos. 2 to 10 that they killed the father and brother of the informant while they were in the shop on 03.06.2000 at about 7.30 P.M. 3. Prosecution case, as set out in the aforesaid FIR is that on 03.06.2000 at about 10.00 A.M., six persons including Manohar, Manager and Ramayan Choudhary came to the shop of the informant on two motorcycles while informant, his father and brother Sunil Kumar were in their shop and served a slip written by Suresh Yadav asking to pay ransom of Rs. 5 lacs. On refusal to pay the miscreants, left holding out threat to retaliate later. After half an hour dreaded criminal, Suresh Choudhary telephonically threatened. Later, in the evening at about 7.30 P.M. while the informant, his father and brother were present in the shop, Suresh Choudhary, Malik Choudhary, Accused No.6 and Jaishree Choudhary came to the shop from north riding a Yamaha motorcycle. Suresh Choudhary resorted to indiscriminate firing which killed the father of the informant, Shiv Nath Prasad and his brother Sunil Kumar on the spot. Having killed the two, miscreants made good their escape towards north. 4. Aforesaid prosecution case has been rejected by the trial court discussing the contents/ contradiction in the FIR and evidence of the informant as also for failure of the prosecution party to produce the ransom slip given to them. Suresh Choudhary resorted to indiscriminate firing causing death of the father of the informant, Shiv Nath Prasad and his brother, Sunil Kumar. After submission of charge sheet, Suresh Choudhary died. In the court below the informant in order to nail others changed his stand that not only Suresh Choudhary resorted to firing but also Malik Choudahry and Jaishree Choudhary resorted to firing which is contrary to the contents of the FIR. After submission of charge sheet, Suresh Choudhary died. In the court below the informant in order to nail others changed his stand that not only Suresh Choudhary resorted to firing but also Malik Choudahry and Jaishree Choudhary resorted to firing which is contrary to the contents of the FIR. Ransom slip was served in the morning of the occurrence demanding ransom of Rs. Five lacs, which led to altercation between those who came to serve the ransom slip and realize the amount from the members of the prosecution party. For failure to lodge information with the police even after receipt of Ransom slip and threatening telephone call half an hour after the receipt of the ransom slip though police station is at a distance of 100-150 yards from the shop of the informant, the court below has drawn adverse inference against the prosecution. Besides, having noticed the aforesaid conduct of the prosecution, the court below has also noticed other contradictions which indicate falsity of the manner of occurrence and in appreciation of such falsity, the trial court has chosen to reject the prosecution case. 5. Having gone through the impugned judgment, particularly paragraph 10, we are of the view that the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view and does not require interference at our instance. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.