Patna High Court
Ravikant Dewedi vs The State Of Bihar on 26 July, 2023
Bench: Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Nawneet Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.358 of 2020
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4057 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2009 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
RAVIKANT DEWEDI Son of Late Nand Kishore Dewedi Resident of Village
- Persauni Khem, P.S.- Chakia, District- East Champaran
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Krishna Singh Son of Chanardeep Singh Resident of Village - Persauni
Khem, P.S.- Chakia, District- East Champaran
3. Narayan Mahato Son of Late Dahaur Mahato Resident of Village - Persauni
Khem, P.S.- Chakia, District- East Champaran
4. Ramasis Mahato Son of Narayan Mahato Resident of Village - Persauni
Khem, P.S.- Chakia, District- East Champaran
5. Sanjeev Singh Son of Dhanbir Singh Resident of Village - Persauni Khem,
P.S.- Chakia, District- East Champaran
6. Rajeev Tiwary Son of Late SitaRam Tiwary Resident of Village - Persauni
Khem, P.S.- Chakia, District- East Champaran
7. Guddu Tiwary Son of Late SitaRam Tiwary Resident of Village - Persauni
Khem, P.S.- Chakia, District- East Champaran
8. Pankaj Tiwary Son of Late SitaRam Tiwary Resident of Village - Persauni
Khem, P.S.- Chakia, District- East Champaran
9. Pappu Tiwary Son of Late SitaRam Tiwary Resident of Village - Persauni
Khem, P.S.- Chakia, District- East Champaran
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent State: Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) Date : 26-07-2023 Respondents No. 2 to 9 were put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 307, 323, 324, 341, 504 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2020 dt.26-07-2023 2/4 read with Section 149 of the IPC. By the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, dated 08.03.2019 in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2011 arising out of Chakia P.S Case No. 177 of 2009, the said respondents have been acquitted of the charges mainly on the ground that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence after framing of charge on 04.06.2011.
2. This appeal has been preferred under the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC questioning the legality of the impugned judgment of acquittal of the trial court.
3. Mr. Vijay Shankar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, who was the informant of the concerned Chakia P.S. Case No. 177 of 2009, has submitted that the prosecution's witnesses were not duly noticed and without ensuring that all the prosecution's witnesses were produced at the trial, in the interest of justice, the trial court has wrongly acquitted respondents No. 2 to 9 for want of evidence.
4. We have perused the impugned judgment of the trial court, the grounds taken in the present memo of appeal and submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant as well.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2020 dt.26-07-2023 3/4
5. According to the prosecution's case, on 30.09.2009, when the appellant/informant was going to keep a bundle of bamboos in his field, respondents No. 2 to 9 armed variously with lathi, farsa, chhura, started assaulting the informant. He sustained injuries. It was alleged in the FIR that accused Ramnarayan Singh had assaulted him with lathi.
6. From perusal of the memo appeal, it appears that the said Ramnarayan Singh died during the pendency of the case. Based on allegation to the aforesaid effect, the FIR was registered and charge-sheet was submitted on 30.11.2009, whereafter cognizance was taken on 30.08.2010 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charges were framed on 04.06.2011. The trial court, in the impugned judgment, has recorded that despite the fact that the prosecution was given adequate opportunity to produce the evidence, no evidence was produced, and accordingly, the evidence of the prosecution was closed and statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC on 29.01.2019. In such circumstance, for want of evidence, the trial court recorded acquittal of respondents No. 2 to
9. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2020 dt.26-07-2023 4/4
7. From the facts mentioned in the memo of appeal itself, it transpires that despite all efforts made by the trial court, the prosecution failed to produce witnesses.
8. In such circumstances, in the Court's opinion, the trial court rightly closed the evidence of the prosecution as it failed to produce any witness till 19.01.2019, though the charge was framed in 2011 itself. We accordingly do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial court.
9. This appeal is accordingly dismissed at this stage itself.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) suraj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 28.07.2023. Transmission Date 28.07.2023