Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1115 (PAT)

Moti Lal Sinha Kanan v. State of Bihar

2019-08-08

ARVIND SRIVASTAVA, DINESH KUMAR SINGH

body2019
ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the father of the deceased claiming to be the victim under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 03.06.2017 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IVth, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 540 of 2013, arising out of Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 333 of 2013, whereby respondent no. 2 has been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of P.W. 1 Rakesh Kanan, P.W. 6 Santosh Kanan and P.W. 10 Kunal Kanan not only suggest illicit relationship of respondent no. 2 with co-accused Abhisek Kumar, who, happens to be the brother-in-law of the sister of respondent no. 2, Shalini Kumari @ Shalini Kanan but also suggests that under conspiracy respondent no. 2 got her husband, Late Atul Krishna Kanan killed. Respondent no. 2 being a conspirator in killing her husband gets further reflected from the call detail report of respondent no. 2, co-accused Abhisek Kumar and the shooter, Sanjay Kumar Sharma. It is also contended that the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. gives a right to victim to file appeal against acquittal. It is trite that even dismissal of government appeal against the same judgment of acquittal does not create any bar for consideration of appeal under the proviso of Section 372 Cr.P.C. preferred by the victim, reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Mallikarjun vs. State of Karnataka & Others, reported in 2018(4) PLJR (SC) 235. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that initially in the FIR even suspicion was not raised against respondent no. 2, however, subsequently, under a conspiracy evidence has been laid to implicate respondent no. 2 just in order to deprive her to succeed the properties of her husband and further not to allow her to reside in matrimonial house. 4. Considering the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W. 10 along with call detail reports of co-accused and respondent no. 2, we are inclined to admit the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is admitted. 5. Since lower Court’s record has already been called for in Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 4. Considering the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W. 10 along with call detail reports of co-accused and respondent no. 2, we are inclined to admit the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is admitted. 5. Since lower Court’s record has already been called for in Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 903 of 2017, 707 of 2017, 790 of 2017 and 794 of 2017 preferred on behalf of the convicts, there is no need for calling of the lower Court’s record. 6. Since respondent no. 2 has already appeared, let this appeal be heard along with the aforementioned criminal appeals preferred against conviction. 7. Let the respondent no. 2 furnish bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Vaishali at Hajipur within a period of six weeks of receipt/production of a copy of this order.