Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 444 (PAT)

Yogendra Bhagat v. State of Bihar

2013-04-03

RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J. Despite repeated calls, no one appears on behalf of the petitioners to press this Criminal Revision. No one is appearing on behalf of the petitioners to press this Criminal Revision since the last two preceding dates. Heard Mr. Dashrath Mehta learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Bharat Lal learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the Lower Court Records. 2. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 17.6.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1 Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 361 of 1989/437 of 2001 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1 Muzaffarpur acquitted the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 of the charges under Sections 302, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears from the records of this case this Criminal Revision stood dismissed as against the opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 due to non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 30.1.2003 passed by a Bench of this Court. 4. It appears that on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant. Deepa Bhagat (PW 1) as recorded on 17.2.1985 at about 3.30 p.m. in the State Dispensary Motipur, P.S. Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur, Motipur P.S. Case No. 18 of 1985 dated 17.2.1985 was instituted under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 and one Brahmdeo, Bhagat. The informant Deepa Bhagat (PW 1) gave his fardbeyan to the effect that on 17.2.1985 at about 8.30-9.00 a.m. his villagers Mahendra Bhagat and Saryug Bhagat both sons of Bhikhar Bhagat started to construct the house near the well and road of his house. When he along with others made protest and requested them to not construct the house there Mahendra Bhagat told them that whatever would be happened they would construct the house and started fixing peg. When the informant along with others uprooted the peg then Mahendra Bhagat, Saryug Bhagat, Siya Ram Bhagat, Nagendra Bhagat, Ravi Shankar Bhagat, Prahlad Bhagat, Brahmdeo Bhagat and Ram Shresth Bhagat brought jarsa bamboo bhala and lathi from their houses and on the instruction of Nagendra Bhagat they started "Maar-Peet" with him and his family members. When the informant along with others uprooted the peg then Mahendra Bhagat, Saryug Bhagat, Siya Ram Bhagat, Nagendra Bhagat, Ravi Shankar Bhagat, Prahlad Bhagat, Brahmdeo Bhagat and Ram Shresth Bhagat brought jarsa bamboo bhala and lathi from their houses and on the instruction of Nagendra Bhagat they started "Maar-Peet" with him and his family members. Mahendra Bhagat with an intention to kill assaulted Jichni Devi, wife of Ram Sevak Bhagat on her head as a result of which she became unconscious. Saryug Bhagat caused injury to Narayan Bhagat with bamboo. Siya Ram Bhagat and Nagendra Bhagat caused injury to Ram Swaroop Bhagat and others with bamboo and lathti Ravi Shankar Bhagat assaulted Ram Sevak Bhagat with lathi causing fractured injury on his left arm Ravi Shankar Bhagat caused injury with lathi to him also. Prahlad Bhagat caused injury to Thakuri Bhagat with bamboo. At that time Brahmdeo Bhagat with an intention to kill caused grievous injury to Puneet Bhagat on his head with bamboo. Ram Shresth Bhagat also caused injury to Ram Chandra Bhagat with bamboo. After the occurrence of "Maar-Peet" Mahendra Bhagat asked to bring the gun with an intention to kill them but in the meantime the villagers rushed there and saved. 5. The police on investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 and one Brahmdeo Bhagat under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 324 and 323 and also Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code due to the death of the injured Ram Sevak Bhagat. Thereafter on taking cognizance of the offences the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and in course of trial one accused. Brahmdeo Bhagat died and accordingly the proceeding against him was dropped. 6. During trial the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses. They are Deepa Bhagat (PW 1), Sita Ram Bhagat (PW 2), Ram Chandra Bhagat (PW 3), Rameshwar Bhagat (PW 4) and Gajendra Bhagat (PW 5). Out of the aforesaid five witnesses, Sita Ram Bhagat (PW 2), Ram Chandra Bhagat (PW 3), Rameshwar Bhagat (PW 4) and Gajendra Bhagat (PW 5) have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. 7. PW 1 Deepa Bhagat who is the informant of the case, has stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place at about 17 years before. 7. PW 1 Deepa Bhagat who is the informant of the case, has stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place at about 17 years before. On that day it was Sunday and the time was about 7.00-8.00 a.m. At that time, Mahendra Bhagat started fixing peg near the road in front of his house. Saryug Bhagat, Siya Ram Bhagat, Nagendra Bhagat, Ram Shresth Bhagat, Ravi Shankar Bhagat, Prahlad Bhagat were along with Mahendra Bhagat. All of them also started fixing peg there. He forbade them but the aforesaid accused persons were adamant and they did not allow uprooting the pegs. Thereafter, scuffle and “Maar-Peet” took place Saryug Bhagat assaulted him through lathi on his left arm causing fractured injury. He could not say as to who caused injury to the injured Ram Swaroop Bhagat, Thakuri Bhagat, Puneet Bhagat, Bhuta Bhagat, Jichni Devi, Joginder Bhagat and Ram Sevak Bhagat. This witness has further stated in his evidence that he along with other injured went to Motipur Government Hospital for treatment, where police came and recorded his statement but he did not read over his statement and the police got his signature on the blank paper. This witness has proved his signature on the fardbeyan as Ext.1 and also the signatures of the witnesses Rameshwar Bhagat and Bhagwan Bhagat as Exts.1/1 and 1/2. This witness has further stated that Ram Sevak Bhagat died in the hospital after 3 days of the occurrence. This witness has further stated in his cross-examination that he could not say as to who caused injury to the deceased Ram Sevak Bhagat. This witness has further stated in his cross-examination that the witnesses Jichni Devi, Puneet Bhagat, Narayan Bhagat, Ram Swaroop Bhagat, Thakuri Bhagat and his father have already died. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 made submission that the learned trial Court on perusal of the materials available on the record has rightly acquitted the opposite party No.2 Mahendra Bhagat as out of the five prosecution witnesses, four have been declared hostile and the statement of the informant, Deepa Bhagat, who has been examined as PW 1, is full of contradictions and without corroboration with other evidence. 9. It appears from the Lower Court Records that the Investigating Officer of the case and the Doctor have not been examined in this case. 10. 9. It appears from the Lower Court Records that the Investigating Officer of the case and the Doctor have not been examined in this case. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. 1, Muzaffarpur, while discussing the evidence of the witnesses in detail in the impugned judgment, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8. I find no illegality in the impugned judgment for interference with the same in revisional jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly this Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Revision dismissed.