Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Akhileshwar Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 6 March, 2013

Author: Amaresh Kumar Lal

Bench: V.N. Sinha, Amaresh Kumar Lal

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  Criminal Appeal (DB) No.846 of 2012
                 ======================================================
                 1. Akhileshwar Kumar Singh S/O Ram Nepal Singh, Resident Of Village-
                 Namidih, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Vaishali.

                                                                  .... ....   Appellant/s
                                               Versus
                 1. The State Of Bihar
                 2. Dharmendra Singh @ Dhananjay Singh S/O Ramjee Singh Resident Of
                 Village- Namidih, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Vaishali.

                                                               .... .... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     : Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate
                 For the State           : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                         CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA
                                                  And

                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL

                                         C.A.V. ORDER

                   (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL)

9   06-03-2013

I.A. No.1479/2012 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing this appeal.

2. Head the learned counsel or the appellant, State and the Respondent no.2.

3. It appears that sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay in filing of this appeal is condoned.

4. I.A. No.1479/2012 stands allowed.

5. The informant-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.846 of 2012 (9) dt.06-03-2013 2 15.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.438/1996 arising out of Lalganj P.S. Case No.136/95 by which respondent no.2 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.09.1995 at about 10.00 A.M., the appellant-informant alongwith his co- villagers Ranjit Kumar Singh and Satyendra Singh was returning to his house after cutting a bamboo for the preparation of the Mandap of 'Durga Ji', when they reached near the Thakurbari, his co-villagers Ramji Singh and his son Dhananjay Singh (respondent no.2) came from behind. Ramji Singh caught hold of the appellant and Dhananjay Singh (respondent no.2) assaulted him with Dab (a sharp cutting weapon) on his head and Ramji Singh assaulted him with Lathi. The informant-appellant was taken to the Referral Hospital, Lalganj where his fardbeyan was recorded at 3.45 P.M. by S.B.Singh , S.I., Lalganj Police Station and accordingly, Lalganj P.S. Case No.136/95 was instituted against the respondent no.2 and his father Ramji Singh. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against both of them for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 341 of the I.P.C. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.846 of 2012 (9) dt.06-03-2013 3 court of sessions. Charges were framed against the accused Ramji Singh for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of the I.P.C. and charge was framed against Dhananjay Singh (respondent no.2) for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. to which they denied and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the co-accused Ramji Singh died on 5.08.2011, as such, the trial proceeded only against respondent no.2.

7. The defence of the respondent no.2 is that on 27.09.1995 at 10.00 A.M. the informant-appellant cut away two bamboos from the bamboo clump of Dhananjay Singh (respondent no.2) for which co-accused Ramji Singh has made query from the appellant-informant and due to that reason, the appellant, his father Ram Nepal Singh and brothers Lalan Singh and Sanjay Singh assaulted Ramji Singh with Hasia for which Ramji Singh got instituted Lalganj P.S. Case No.138/95 appertaining to G.R.No.2111/95 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326/34 of the I.P.C.

8. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the lower court records. It appears that during trial P.W.1, the informant and the victim of the occurrence and P.W.2 Santosh Kumar Singh have been examined (attested copy of injury report has been marked as Ext. '2'). After considering the evidence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.846 of 2012 (9) dt.06-03-2013 4 adduced on behalf of both the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned trial court has disbelieved the evidence of the informant, who has stated in his deposition that he remained in Lalganj Hospital for treatment for five days, but no document has been adduced regarding his admission in the Hospital and also on the ground that he has stated that during treatment, he handed over the bloodstained cloth to the compounder of the Hospital, but the same has not been produced during the trial. Secondly, the evidence of P.W.2 has been disbelieved on the ground that he is not the eye witness to the occurrence as according to the FIR Ranjit Kumar Singh and Satyendra Singh were accompanying the informant while he was returning to his house, but none of them have been examined and no explanation has been given for their non-examination.

9. The learned trial court has also found that the case instituted by Ramji Singh against the prosecution party has been believed and the accused of that case have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. by the learned Magistrate which has been marked as Ext. 'A' on behalf of the defence.

10. Considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the learned trial court has held that the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.846 of 2012 (9) dt.06-03-2013 5 prosecution has not been able to prove its charge against respondent no.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, he has been acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, we do not find any ground to take a different view of the matter. This appeal has got no merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.

(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) I agree.

V.N.Sinha, J :

(V.N. Sinha, J) V.K. Pandey/-