Sri Kant Kumar Sinha v. State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.3 of 2002 dt.07-01-2013 2 before Sri A.K.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patnacity Patna in trial no. 834/1998. The charges for the offences under sections 448, 341, 342, 323, 379 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against appellant as well as his son and after trial appellant as well as his son were acquitted by Sri A.K.Singh Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patnacity, Patna vide judgment dated 30.5.1998.

#4. After pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, appellant filed Complaint case no. 483/1998 in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patnacity against respondent no.2 and two others to this effect that respondent no.2 intentionally lodged the aforesaid Agam Kuan P.S. case no. 109/1996 with an intent to humiliate appellant and his son and on account of lodging of the aforesaid false case, he as well as his son had to suffer a lot by going into jail and accordingly, respondent no.2 as well as rest accused committed the offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

#5. The aforesaid complaint petition was enquired under section 202 of the Cr.P.C and subsequently, having found prima facie case under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent no.2 and two others, the learned trial court ordered to issue summons against them and after completion of appearance, accusation under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was explained and evidence of appellant as well as his witnesses was taken. Appellant also got exhibited some documents to substantiate his allegation. The learned trial court, having heard the parties, passed the impugned judgment dated 22.1.2001 by which he acquitted respondent no.2 and two Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.3 of 2002 dt.07-01-2013 3 others. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that there was no defamation and the case came under exception 8 of section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, appellant filed S.L.A. no.11/2001 which was partly allowed and the appellant was permitted to file appeal only against respondent no.2 whereas he was not permitted to file appeal against rest accused of Complaint case no. 483/1998. Accordingly, appellant preferred the present appeal.

#6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal arguing that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the materials available on record. He further submitted that in course of trial, almost all witnesses supported the case of the appellant but the learned trial court failed to appreciate the depositions of witnesses. He further submitted that admittedly, after full-fledged trial, the accusation levelled against appellant as well as his son was found untrue by a competent court and, therefore, it is apparent that accusation levelled against appellant and his son in Agam Kuan P.S. case no. 109/1996 was not bonafide and respondent no.2 had brought the above stated false case with an intent to lower down the dignity of appellant and his son in the eyes of society and, therefore, a clear cut case under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against respondent no.2 but the learned trial court perversely acquitted respondent no.2 and other accused.

#7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and drew my attention towards annexure 1 to S. L.A. No. 11/2001 and Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.3 of 2002 dt.07-01-2013 4 submitted that in trial of Agam Kuan P.S. case no. 109/1996, neither any notice nor any summon was ever served upon respondent no.2 as well as his witnesses and the learned trial court acquitted the appellant as well as his son in want of sufficient evidence and, therefore, accusation levelled against appellant and his son in the aforesaid case was not properly scrutinized and, therefore, it can not be said that accusation levelled against appellant as well as his son in Agam Kuan P.S. case no. 109/1996 was not bonafide and, therefore, learned trial court has rightly given the benefit of exception 8 of section 499 of the Indian Penal Code to respondent no.2.

#8. Having heard the contentions of both the parties I have gone through the record. It is an admitted position that Agam Kuan P.S. case no. 109/1996 was lodged by respondent no.2 against appellant as well as his son levelling allegation that on the alleged date of occurrence they entered his house and not only assaulted him but also snatched Rs 500/- from him. Furthermore, the aforesaid case was investigated by the police and having found accusation true, police submitted charge sheet and after that the court also took cognizance of the offences. Annexure 1 to S.L.A. No. 11/2001 shows that learned trial court in Agam Kuan P.S. case no. 109/1996 ordered to issue summonses to the witnesses of the aforesaid case including respondent no.2 to the present case and also handed over Dasti summonses to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor but there is nothing to show that the aforesaid summonses were ever served upon respondent no.2 as well as his witnesses and, therefore I do agree with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that accusation Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.3 of 2002 dt.07-01-2013 5 levelled against the appellant as well as his son in Agam Kuan P.S. case no. 109/1996 was not properly scrutinized and appellant as well as his son were acquitted in the aforesaid case in want of sufficient evidence and, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly held that case of respondent no.2 comes under exception 8 of section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, I do not find any merit in this criminal appeal and this criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and the impugned judgment of acquittal is, hereby, confirmed. Shahid/ NAFR (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)