Patna High Court - Orders
Dinesh Mahto @ Bindeshwar Mahto vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 April, 2012
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Ashwani Kumar Singh
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.383 of 2012 (2) dt.17-04-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.383 of 2012
======================================================
Dinesh Mahto @ Bindeshwar Mahto S/O Late Dahu Mahto Resident Of
Village- Chandi, P.S.- Ariyari (Kasar), District- Sheikhpura
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Lalita Devi W/O Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Das Resident Of Village-
Chandi, P.S.- Ariyari (Kasar), District- Sheikhpura
3. Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Das S/O Kali Charan Das Resident Of
Village- Chandi, P.S.- Ariyari (Kasar), District- Sheikhpura
4. Prabhat Kumar S/O Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Das Resident Of Village-
Chandi, P.S.- Ariyari (Kasar), District- Sheikhpura
5. Ajay Kumar S/O Subhash Das Resident Of Village- Chandi, P.S.- Ariyari
(Kasar), District- Sheikhpura
6. Ranju Kumar S/O Subhash Das Resident Of Village- Chandi, P.S.-
Ariyari (Kasar), District- Sheikhpura
7. Ramdeo Das S/O Kashi Das Resident Of Village- Chandi, P.S.- Ariyari
(Kasar), District- Sheikhpura
8. Pappu Ravidas @ Pappu Das S/O Mishri Ravidas Resident Of Village-
Chandi, P.S.- Ariyari (Kasar), District- Sheikhpura
9. Prakash Das S/O Mishri Ravidas Resident Of Village- Chandi, P.S.-
Ariyari (Kasar), District- Sheikhpura
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD
SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR
SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
2 17-04-2012This is an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against acquittal. The private respondents were charged under Section 302/34 IPC and have been acquitted by the trial court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.383 of 2012 (2) dt.17-04-2012
In our view, there is no scope for interference. It appears that the appellant had first instituted a police case suspecting the eight accused persons of having conspired to kill his two infant sons aged about eight and five years. It is alleged that leaving the two sons behind they had gone to agricultural field. Upon returning the afternoon they found them missing. Upon search they found their bodies in a near pond. He suspected that the accused persons might have committed the crime. Police upon investigation filed final report stating that the accusation was false. The children had drown while having bath. Their clothes were found on the side of the pond. Upon protest petition being filed with the same was treated as protest-cum- complaint and after enquiry cognizance having been taken. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. The trial court has found that there is absolutely no evidence that any person had seen any one of the eight accused persons committing the crime though there is no dispute that the two infants died. The trial court having come to the finding that the death was homicidal not having been established. The prosecution had failed to bring home the charge against the accused persons and as such acquitted.
We see no reason to interfere as neither the appreciation of evidence is perverse or illegal and the judgment suffers from no Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.383 of 2012 (2) dt.17-04-2012 perversity or illegality.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)
B.Kr./- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)