Sunayana Devi @ Sunaina Devi v. The State Of Bihar & Ors

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State.

2. Request made in the Interlocutory Application No. 2018 of 2012 to condone the delay of about 10 months in filing the instant appeal is allowed. The delay is condoned. I. A. No. 2018 of 2012 is, accordingly, disposed of.

3. The appellant is the informant who has filed the appeal in the light of proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment dated 3.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1132 of 2012 (4) dt.10-01-2013 2 No. 2, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 352 of 2010, whereunder respondent no. 2 to 8 have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 147, 148, 323, and 307/149 of the Penal Code.

4. It appears that Parsauni P. S. Case No. 58 of 2009 dated 9.7.2009 was registered against respondent nos. 2 to 8 for the offence referred to above alleging that Satya Narayan Paswan on the orders of Shiv Chandra Paswan assaulted the informant with farsa on her head duly assisted by other respondents who also assaulted the informant with lathi, fists and slaps in presence of her son and brother-in-law P.W. 4 and P.W. 1 respectively. The informant was examined in the trial as P.W. 5.

5. The trial court considered the evidence of eye witnesses in the background of the fact that the assault is said to have taken place at 3 p.m. on 6.7.2009 but the first information report was registered by the Officer-in-Charge of Riga Police Station on 6.7.2009 at about 6 p.m. in the evening and then transmitted to Parsauni Police Station for investigation. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that soon after the occurrence she was taken to Parsauni Police Station by her son and brother- in-law but the officer-in-charge, Parsauni Police Station refused to lodge the first information report and asked her to get herself treated, whereafter the appellant in the company of her son and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1132 of 2012 (4) dt.10-01-2013 3 brother-in-law went to Primary Health Centre, Riga which is at a distance of 15-16 kilometres from Parsauni and got herself examined by the doctor of Primary Health Centre, Riga at about 4 p.m. and thereafter at the request of brother-in-law of the informant the officer-in-charge of Riga Police Station came to the Primary Health Centre Riga at about 6 p.m. and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant.

6. The trial court has doubted the prosecution story on the ground that if the officer-in-charge Parsauni Police Station advised the informant to get her treated, she was required to have gone to Primary Health Centre, Parsauni itself but only with a view to procure favourable injury certificate the informant chose to visit Riga Primary Health Centre which was at a distance of 15- 16 kilometres. The prosecution story has also been doubted for the reasons that the altercation between the son of the informant began in the orchard, whereafter the son of the informant was chased by accused Ganaur Paswan and then Shivchandra Paswan and Satya Narayan Paswan came to her house but returned at the request of the informant. Parikshan Paswan, Laxman Paswan, Umesh Paswan and Shatrudhan Paswan armed with lahti, stick thereafter came to the house of the informant and abused her. While they were abusing Shiv Chandra Paswan and Satya Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1132 of 2012 (4) dt.10-01-2013 4 Narayan Paswan again appeared on the scene and on the orders of Shiv Chandra Paswan Satya Narayan Paswan assaulted the informant with farsa and others assaulted her with lathi, stick, fists and slaps. After the assault the informant was taken to Parsauni Police Station by her brother-in-law and son. The officer-in- charge of Parsauni Police Station did not record the first information report and advised the informant to get herself treated. Informant did not avail treatment at Parsauni but proceeded to Riga which is at a distance of 15-16 KM.

7. The genesis of the occurrence as stated in fard beyan and in the court is also different as according to the version recorded by the informant in the court it is the land dispute with Rudal Paswan which is the cause of this occurrence but Rudal Paswan has not been made accused in the FIR. Counsel for the appellant then pointed out that the son of Rudal Paswan is Shatrudhan Paswan who is accused no. 7 in the FIR/trial. Aforesaid fact was never disclosed before the trial court. The trial court has considered this aspect of the matter in paragraph 16 and concluded that land dispute between the informant and Rudal Paswan cannot be investigated in the present trial as Rudal Paswan is not a party and there is nothing to connect the accused no. 7 Shatrudhan Paswan with Rudal Paswan. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1132 of 2012 (4) dt.10-01-2013 5

8. The trial court has meticulously examined the evidence of informant (P.W. 5), her brother in law (P.W. 1) and son (P.W. 4) which is noted extenso in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment and thereafter the material contradictions between the evidence of three material witnesses of the occurrence has been noticed in paragraph 16 coupled with the fact that the informant chose to lodge her fardbeyan at Primary Health Centre, Riga at about 6 p.m. though the occurrence has taken place at about 3 pm, rejected the prosecution case and acquitted the respondents. The view taken by the trial court is a plausible view and we do not intend to take a different view than the one which has been taken in paragraph 16 of the judgment.

9. In the result, this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (V.N. Sinha, J) Kanchan/- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)