Rashid Sai v. The State of Bihar

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1373 of 2009 (4) dt.07-12-201 accused opposite party no. 2 to 4. In support of the prosecution case altogether six witnesses were examined, out of them P.W. 1 is the informant himself. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are his wife, son and mother respectively and P.W. 6 is the doctor. P.W. 5 is the I.O. of the case. On conclusion of trial by judgment and order dated

21.08.2008 passed in G.R. Case No. 2421 of 2005/ Trial No. 2548 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra, Saran, accused opposite parties were acquitted of the charge under Section 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, they were convicted for charges under Sections 447, 323, 341 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 447 I.P.C, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentence were directed to run concurrently. The opposite party no. 2 to 4 being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, preferred Cr. Appeal No. 120 of 2008, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 17th June 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra.

Hence, the present revision application at the behest of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned lower appellate court has not appreciated the evidence of the witnesses correctly. According to him, if the evidence of prosecution witnesses would have been properly appreciated by the learned lower appellate court, then there was no occasion for interference in the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court. It is contended that though all the four material Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1373 of 2009 (4) dt.07-12-201 witnesses were the family members of the informant, but they all have supported the prosecution case and the P.W. 6, the doctor has also found injury on the person of the victim. Therefore, according to him, the impugned judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court is not sustainable in the eye of law and the matter is required to be remitted back for fresh decision.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer and supported the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned lower appellate court. After having heard the parties and on examination of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the learned lower appellate court has meticulously scrutinized the evidence available on record and thereafter it has come to a finding that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4. According to the findings of the learned lower appellate court, manner of occurrence as also the place of occurrence have not been conclusively proved by the prosecution party, and, therefore, accused persons are entitled to have the benefits of doubts. The learned lower appellate court has also come to a finding that the injury report prepared by P.W. 6 did not support the time of occurrence as disclosed by the prosecution.

By taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, and by extending the benefits of doubts to the accused persons, the learned lower appellate court has reversed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the accused opposite party no. 2 to 4 and, thereafter, has recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1373 of 2009 (4) dt.07-12-201 It is well established principles of law that the appeal is a continuation of trial. The learned lower appellate court was fully justified and well within its jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for coming to a different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. This Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error committed by the learned lower appellate court in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. In the result, the application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/-