Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.126 of 2013 ====================================================== Jai Prakash Singh, Son of Raghunandan Singh, R/o Village-Padaria, P.S.- Deo, District-Aurangabad. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Amrendra Singh @ Amrendra Kumar Singh, S/o Mahendra Singh, resident of Village-Padoria, P.S.-Deo, District-Aurangabad. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 26-02-2013 The present appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.02.2012, passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-V, Aurangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 173 of 2008 / 193(A) of 2008. On the basis of a written report submitted by respondent no. 2, Deo P.S. Case No. 47 of 1998, was registered under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and others. In sum and substance, the allegation made in the said
Legal Reasoning
FIR is that the appellant killed his wife Babita Devi with aid of his family members. The said case was investigated by the police and on conclusion of investigation the allegations made in the FIR were found to be false. The investigating officer of the case while 2 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.126 of 2013 (2) dt.26-02-2013 2 / 7 submitting the final form recommended for prosecution of respondent no. 2 under Sections 182 & 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The report submitted by the police under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was accepted by the court. Subsequently, on the basis of written application of the Officer-in-Charge of Deo Police Station, G.O. Case No. 144 of 1998, was registered against respondent no. 2. After receiving that written report of the Officer-in-Charge, the learned C.J.M. took cognizance of the offence under Sections 182 & 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was, thereafter, committed to the court of sessions for trial. The trial court framed charges under Section 182 & 211 against respondent no. 2 to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined altogether seven witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 3 Damayanti Devi, P.W. 4 Baikunth Singh and P.W. 5 Pramod Kumar Singh turned hostile. P.W. 7 Bharat Prasad Mehta is a formal witness. He has proved FIR of Deo P.S. Case No. 47 of 1998 in course of trial. P.W. 6, Birendra Kumar Sinha, who was the investigating officer of Deo P.S. Case No. 47 of 1998, is the complainant of the present case. Thus, apart from the complainant, the two other 3 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.126 of 2013 (2) dt.26-02-2013 3 / 7 witnesses who are said to have supported the prosecution case, are P.W. 1 Rajendra Singh and P.W. 2 Geeta Devi. It is relevant to note here that the appellant Jai Prakash Singh has not been examined as a witness in this case on behalf of the prosecution. However, he was made an accused in Deo P.S Case No. 47 of 1998. P.W. 1 Rajendra Singh has stated in his evidence that wife of the appellant was a teacher at Ketaki Kanya School and she died due to Diarrhoea. He has further contended that the deceased was treated in Ketaki Hospital, from where, she was referred to Aurangabad and while in way to Aurangabad, she died. According to him, the deceased was cremated in presence of the villagers. In cross-examination, he has pointed out that the appellant brought his wife to Ketaki Hospital at 12 O’ clock. He has not stated that respondent no. 2 falsely instituted Deo P.S. Case No. 47 of 1988. He has also not stated that respondent no. 2 lodged a false case with intent to cause injury to any one knowing that there is no just ground for such proceeding against that person. P.W. 2 Geeta Devi is a hearsay witness. She has stated that she came to know from the appellant that the victim died due to Diarrhoea. In cross-examination, she has stated that on the date 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.126 of 2013 (2) dt.26-02-2013 4 / 7 of occurrence, the deceased had gone to attend her school at Ketaki and she became ill. The female students of the school took her to home. She has further stated that in the night, she remained at her matrimonial home and in the next morning at about 8 a.m. she was taken to Ketaki by a tractor belonging to one Nandu Singh. She has further stated that she was treated in Government Hospital, Ketaki and from there she was brought to Aurangabad. However, she died at the time when she was getting down from the tractor. In cross-examination, she has stated that Babita died at about 10 a.m. and she was cremated at about 1 p.m. In further cross-examination, she admitted that when Babita had gone to school, she was not ill. She has also not alleged that respondent no. 2 had filed a false case intending thereby to cause any injury to the accused persons. P.W. 6 had investigated Deo P.S. Case No. 47 of 1998. In cross-examination, he has admitted that in course of investigation, he had recorded statement of Ashok Kumar Singh, Mirtunjay Singh, Rajendra Singh, Pramod Kumar Singh, Chhotan Singh, Dhananjay Singh, Triveni Singh, Kamal Singh, Krishna Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh and Ramesh Singh. However, none of these witnesses were ever examined in the present case. P.W. 6 has also admitted in cross-examination that in course of 5 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.126 of 2013 (2) dt.26-02-2013 5 / 7 investigation, he had examined doctor Akhauri Vijay Prasad. It is relevant to note here that no doctor has been examined in the present case. Even the parents of the deceased have not been examined in the present case. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the ingredients of the offence as defined under Sections 182 & 211 of the Indian Penal Code are completely missing. In order to appreciate the submission of the appellant, it is relevant to quote Sections 182 & 211 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- “182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.- Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant- (a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to 6 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.126 of 2013 (2) dt.26-02-2013 6 / 7 one thousand rupees, or with both.” “211. False charge of offence made with intent to injure.- Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” There is no whisper by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution that respondent no. 2 initiated the proceeding against the accused persons of Deo P.S. Case No. 47 of 1998 on the basis of an information which he knew or believed to be false. There is also no whisper that the said criminal case was instituted with intent to cause injury to any person, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person. 7 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.126 of 2013 (2) dt.26-02-2013 7 / 7 There is no other evidence on record to show that the victim died in course of medical treatment. The prosecution has not brought even a chit of paper to show that the victim died due to Diarrhoea. I further find that P.W. 6 has admitted in cross- examination that the witness Chhotan Singh had stated in course of investigation of Deo P.S. Case No. 47 of 1998 that Babita Devi was killed in her matrimonial home. Thus, taking into consideration the evidence on record, the trial court recorded a judgment of acquittal. The trial court has given clear, cogent and convincing reasons for recording acquittal. The judgment of the trial court is neither perverse nor erroneous. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the present appeal. It is dismissed, accordingly. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)