Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1132 of 2010 ====================================================== Mahadeo Manjhi, son of Goner Bhuiya, resident of Kaithwara, P.S.- Sikandra, District-Jamui. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sheo Kumar Singh. 3. Dinesh Singh. 4. Sanjay Singh. All are sons of Late Rewa Singh. 5. Ram Autar Singh, son of Late Birju Singh. All are resident of village-Kaithwara, P.S.-Sikandra, District-Jamui. .... .... Respondent/s ======================================================
Legal Reasoning
Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nagendra Dubey, Advocate. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the O.P. : Mr. Achal Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 8 21-02-2013 The present appeal has been filed under Section 372 proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.9.2010 recorded in S.C. & S.T. Case No. 794 of 2001 by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jamui. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 9.7.1998 at about 12 O’ clock, the accused persons came at the land of the informant bearing Khata No. 63, Khesra No. 839 having an area of 44 decimals situated at Mauza Kaithwara and forcibly started to plough it. On protest, the accused persons abused the informant, 2 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1132 of 2010 (8) dt.21-02-2013 2 / 5 assaulted him by fists and slaps and painted his face with black colour. They also snatched Rs.500/- from his pocket and took L.T.I. on a plain paper at the point of pistol. It has further been alleged that the informant, in order to save himself, fled away towards his house. However, the accused persons chased him. They entered inside his house and again started to abuse and assault him. When his mother and wife came in rescue, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. Lastly, the informant has alleged that he went to the police station to lodge FIR but, the police refused to institute case against the accused persons and, as such, he filed a complaint in the court on 10.7.1998. The complaint filed by the informant was sent to the police station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. Accordingly, the police instituted Sikandra P.S. Case No. 107 of 1998 dated 4.8.1998 under Sections 386, 379 IPC and 3(i)(iv)(v) & (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On conclusion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet in the case. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. The trial court framed charges under Sections 386, 323, 3 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1132 of 2010 (8) dt.21-02-2013 3 / 5 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(i)(v) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to which, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced. In course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, altogether seven witnesses were examined in order to prove the charges. P.W. 1, Shiv Shankar Mishra, is a formal witness. He has proved the FIR in the writing of the Officer-in-Charge, Sikandra which has been marked as Ext-1. In cross-examination, he has stated that he knows nothing about the case. P.W. 2, Hari Manjhi and P.W. 3, Naga Paswan are witnesses to the first part of the occurrence which took place in the field of the informant. In cross-examination, they have admitted that a dispute relating to the land in question was going on between the parties from before. They have further stated that they have not seen any document relating to the land. According to them, both parties claim their right and title over the disputed land. P.W. 4, Poonam Devi, is wife of the informant. She is a witness to the second part of the occurrence which took place inside the house. The defence has drawn her attention towards the previous statement made under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. before the police. She has been contradicted by the investigating officer of 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1132 of 2010 (8) dt.21-02-2013 4 / 5 the case in material particulars. She has also admitted the dispute relating to land between the parties. Similarly, P.W. 5, Ramawati Devi, mother of the informant, has also been contradicted by the investigating officer of the case. She is a hearsay witness so far as the first part of the occurrence is concerned. However, she has claimed herself to be an eye witness so far as the second part of the occurrence is concerned. She has also been contradicted by the investigating officer of the case in material particulars. P.W. 6, Mahadeo Manjhi, is the informant of the case. In cross-examination, he has also admitted dispute relating to the land in question between the parties. He has further admitted that the police had never inspected the first place of occurrence. He has corroborated the allegations made in the FIR. His attention was also drawn towards the previous statement made before the police. When the investigating officer of the case was examined as P.W. 7 in the case, he has contradicted the informant also in material particulars. Thus, what is being found in the case is that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have been contradicted by the investigating officer in material particulars. The defence had also adduced oral as well as 5 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1132 of 2010 (8) dt.21-02-2013 5 / 5 documentary evidence in support of their claim over the land. The trial court has taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I have heard the parties and perused the record. I find that the trial court has given clear, cogent and convincing reasons for acquittal of the accused persons. The findings of the trial court are neither erroneous nor perverse. The mere fact that the view other than the one taken by the trial court can legitimately be arrived at by the trial court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the present application. It is dismissed, accordingly. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)