Patna High Court - Orders
Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 February, 2013
Author: V.N. Sinha
Bench: V.N. Sinha, Amaresh Kumar Lal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.859 of 2011
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar son of Late Shailendra Kumar Singh R/O,Village-
Amer,P.S.-Bidupur,District-Vaishali
.... ....informant/ Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Arbind Kumar son of Late Laxmi Singh Village-Gauspur
Izra,P.S.Hajipur(Sadar),District-Vaishali
3. Arun Kumar Singh son of Late Laxmi Singh Village-Gauspur
Izra,P.S.Hajipur(Sadar),District-Vaishali
4. Anil Kumar son of Late Laxmi Singh Village-Gauspur
Izra,P.S.Hajipur(Sadar),District-Vaishali
5. Chanchala Devi W/O Anil Kumar Village-Gauspur
Izra,P.S.Hajipur(Sadar),District-Vaishali
6. Baijanti Devi W/O Arun Kumar Singh Village-Gauspur
Izra,P.S.Hajipur(Sadar),District-Vaishali
7. Kesari Devi W/O Late Laxmi Singh Village-Gauspur
Izra,P.S.Hajipur(Sadar),District-Vaishali
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the informant : Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shivesh Chandra Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA)
5 11-02-2013Heard learned counsel for the appellant who is the informant of Hajipur (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 162 of 2000 registered for the offence under Sections 304 B, 201/34 of the Penal Code. He has filed this appeal assailing the judgment dated 4.6.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 2001 wherein the prosecution case as set out in Hajipur (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 162 of 2000 has been rejected as the accused persons discharged the onus that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.859 of 2011 (5) dt.11-02-2013 2/2 deceased died on account of diarrhoea and vomiting within seven years of her marriage by examining doctor who attended on her.
2. It further appears that one of the prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 Dinesh Kumar, brother of the informant and the deceased was present at the time of death of his sister and participated in her cremation. After cremation of the deceased present case was lodged stating that P.W. 1 Dinesh Kumar was informed by the deceased herself that she has been poisoned and she is not going to survive. Aforesaid evidence of P.W. 1 has not been accepted by the court below as he did not take any steps after the death of his sister to stop her cremation rather he participated in the same and lodged the present case after cremation.
3. The view taken by the trial court appears to be a plausible view and we are not inclined to take a different view in the matter. The appeal is dismissed.
(V.N. Sinha, J)
Kanchan/- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)