Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar Through The District ... vs Rajesh Mahto on 23 August, 2018
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.6 of 2018
In
Govt. Appeal (DB) No.2 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2016 Thana- SAMSTIPUR RAIL P.S District-
Samastipur
The State Of Bihar Through The District Magistrate, Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Rajesh Mahto, son of Deven Mahto, resident of village - Musapur, Police
Station - Muffasil Samastipur, District - Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-08-2018 Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned advocate for the appellant / State did not press the Interlocutory Application No. 1202 of 2018, whereby leave was sought for preferring appeal against the judgement and order of acquittal.
2. As such, by order dated 08.08.2018, the aforesaid Interlocutory Application was dismissed as not pressed.
3. However, in view of the provisions contained in Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate seeks to press the present Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.6 of 2018 dt.23-08-2018 2/6 government appeal, as if it were a petition seeking leave for filing the government appeal.
4. The respondent / Rajesh Mahto has been acquitted of the charges under Section 414 of the I.P.C. and Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
5. On the statement of Sanjay Kumar, Officer Incharge, Government Rail Police, Samastipur, an F.I.R. vide Samastipur Rail P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016 was registered for investigation.
6. It was alleged in the aforesaid F.I.R. that the Office Incharge / informant / P.W. 6 received a secret information on 11.03.2016 that the respondent is trying to make efforts to sedate some of the passengers at Samastipur Railway Station near booking hall / circulating area for the purposes of divesting those passengers of their belongings.
7. Such information was reduced into writing in Station Diary and P.W. 6 along with the police party arrived at Samastipur Railway Station.
8. Near the circulating area / booking hall, one person, wearing a cap, was found making efforts to use sedative substance. On being identified as the same person, an attempt was made to nab him but he could manage his escape.
Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.6 of 2018 dt.23-08-2018 3/6
9. It has been submitted that thereafter the respondent took a three-wheeler from the Samastipur Bus Stand and went to a tea shop from where he was arrested. Form his possession, three mobile telephones, two identity cards, a small purse and a strip of 10 tablets of Esopam Plus, a contraband medicine, was found. The respondent is said to have disclosed that on an earlier occasion in the year 2015, he had administered the aforesaid substance in a drink to an Army man and had taken away his personal belongings. In the aforesaid occurrence, he has gone to Jail. Because of his financial stringency, the respondent has renewed the aforesaid act of robbing the passengers.
10. On the basis of the statement, referred to above, Samastipur Rail P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016 was registered for investigation.
11. At the trial, 9 prosecution witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defence, four witnesses were examined.
12. P.W.s 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are members of the raiding team, who have supported the prosecution version regarding the chase and arrest of the respondent. All of them have narrated the same version as that of P.W. 6.
13. The Investigating Officer / P.W. 7 has however stated that he was not member of the team and he did not examine any family member of the respondent Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.6 of 2018 dt.23-08-2018 4/6 or any person before whom the occurrence had taken place.
14. Some of the witnesses, who had been examined, had not stated before him that the medicine in question was purchased from Jogbani and that on earlier occasion the aforesaid medicine was used for sedating and thereafter robbing the passengers.
15. What is of relevance is that the seizure-list witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and have stated that at the instance of P.W. 6, they had singed the seizure list.
16. P.W.s 8 and 9 have denied that the respondent had been arrested in a tea shop.
17. The trial court, after analyzing the evidence offered on behalf of the prosecution, doubted the version on the ground that it did not appear to be plausible that the respondent escaped the net of the policy party, especially when he was spotted near the circulating area / booking office, which is a small place. Apart from this, the trial court also found out that the respondent was not arrested on hot chase. The respondent is said to have boarded a three-wheeler and went to a tea shop about four kms away from the Railway Station. The trial court therefore was of the view that if the respondent had run away from the clutches of the police, there was no reason Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.6 of 2018 dt.23-08-2018 5/6 for him to have alighted from the three-wheeler near a tea shop. That apart, even if he had alighted from the three- wheeler and had been consuming tea at a particular place, there was no reason for him to keep the medicines with him when he knew that it was for the possession of such medicines that he was being chased by the police. The version of the prosecution was also not accepted by the trial court for the reason that the three-wheeler driver was not brought forth for testifying to the fact that the respondent made use of the aforesaid vehicle to run away from the clutches of the police.
18. In the absence of the proof of the recovery of Esopam Plus tablets from the possession of the respondent, the trial court had no option but to acquit him of the charges.
19. From the impugned judgement, it appears that the trial court has also taken note of the deposition of witnesses offered on behalf of the defene.
20. The respondent is said to have been arrested from his house and was made accused in the aforesaid case. For the fact that the appellant was not caught on hot chase and that the seizure-list witnesses have not supported the prosecution version, this Court is of the view that the judgement and order of acquittal by the trial court is absolutely justified.
Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.6 of 2018 dt.23-08-2018 6/6
21. As such, the leave to file the appeal is declined.
The petition is dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J) skm/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE Uploading Date 27.08.2018 Transmission Date 27.08.2018