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 3, Cited by 2]

Patna High Court

The State Of Bihar vs Sanjay Kumar @ Chunna Lal on 4 April, 2014

Author: Jyoti Saran

Bench: Jyoti Saran

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

                        Criminal Revision No.484 of 1998

  Against the judgment and order dated 20.5.1998 passed by the learned
  1st. Assistant Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Sessions Case No.224 of 1994.
===========================================================
Rajendra Prasad, son of Shri Hari Mandal, resident of Village- Muskipur, P.S.
Gogari, District- Khagaria.
                                                             .... .... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Ashok Kumar Sah.
3. Anil Kumar.
4. Bijay Sah @ Bijay Kumar.
        Sons of late Khusilal Sah @ Anand Kishore Sah.
5. Manoj Kumar Sah, son of Shaukhilal Sah.
6. Munna Sah, son of Bhola Sah.
7. Devwanti Devi, wife of late Khushilal Sah @ Anand Kishore Sah.
8. Nisha Devi, wife of Shaukhilal Sah.
9. Kiran Devi, wife of Munna Sah.
         All are residents of Village- Muskipur (Jamalpur), P.S. Gogari, District-
    Khagaria.
                                                        .... .... Opposite Party/s
                                       with

                         Criminal Revision No. 485 of 1998
===========================================================
Rajendra Prasad, son of Shri Hari Mandal, resident of Village- Muskipur, P.S.
Gogari, district- Khagaria.
                                                                .... .... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Chunu Sah @ Sanjay Kumar, son of late Khushilal Sah @ Anand Kishore Sah,
    resident of village- Muskipur (Jamalpur), P.S. Gogari, District- Khagaria.
                                                           .... .... Opposite Party/s
                                       with

                       Govt. Appeal (SJ) No. 32 of 1998
===========================================================
The State of Bihar
                                                             .... .... Appellant/s
                                     Versus
1. Ashok Kumar Sah, son of late Khushilal Sah @ Anand Kishore Sah.
2. Anil Kumar, son of late Khushilal Sah @ Anand Kishore Sah.
3. Bijay Sah alias Bijay Kumar, son of late Khushilal Sah @ Anand Kishore Sah.
4. Manoj Kumar Sah, son of Shaukhilal Sah.
5. Munna Sah, son of Bhola Sah.
6. Devwanti Devi, W/o late Khushilal Sah alias Anand Kishore Sah.
7. Nisha Devi, W/o Shaukhilal Sah.
8. Kiran Devi, W/o Munna Sah.
               All are residents of Village- Mushkipur (Jamalpur), P.S.- Gogri,
   District- Khagaria.
                                                   .... Accused .... Respondent/s
 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.484 of 1998 dt.04-04-2014                                     2




                                                with

                            Govt. Appeal (SJ) No. 33 of 1998
    ===========================================================
    The State of Bihar
                                                                   .... .... Appellant/s
                                          Versus
    Sanjay Kumar @ Chunna Lal, son of late Khushilal Sah @ Anand Kishore Sah,
    resident of Mushkipur (Jamalpur), P.S. Gogri, District- Khagaria.
                                                         .... Accused .... Respondent/s
    ===========================================================
    Appearance :
    (In CR. REV. No. 484 of 1998)
    For the Petitioner/s :      Mr. Dinu Kumar
                                 Mr. Shiv Kumar Prabhakar
                                 Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma
                                 Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh

    For the Opposite Party/s :   Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
    (In CR. REV. No. 485 of 1998)
    For the Petitioner/s :       Mr. Dinu Kumar
                                 Mr. Shiv Kumar Prabhakar
                                 Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma
                                 Mr. Rajesh Kumar
    For the Opposite Party/s :   Mr. Shantanu Kumar, App
    (In G. APP. (SJ) No. 32 of 1998)
    For the Appellant/s :        Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
    For the Respondent/s :       Mr.
    (In G. APP. (SJ) No. 33 of 1998)
    For the Appellant/s :        Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
    For the Respondent/s :       Mr.
    ===========================================================
    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
    ORAL JUDGMENT
    Date: 04-04-2014

                           The Criminal Revision Applications and the Govt.

         Appeals (S.J.) are directed against the judgment and order dated

         20.5.1998

passed by the learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Sessions Case No.224 of 1994 arising from Gogari P.S. Case No.84 of 1994 registered for the offences punishable under sections 363, 365 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the court below has acquitted all the accused except Chunna Sah, of the charges.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.484 of 1998 dt.04-04-2014 3 Being aggrieved the informant and the State is before this Court in revision/Govt. appeals.

Whereas Criminal Revision No.484 of 1998 and Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.32 of 1998 are filed questioning the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused-opposite parties/respondents, Criminal Revision No.485 of 1998 and Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.33 of 1998 is directed against the sentence awarded to the opposite party no.2, namely, Chuna Sah @ Sanjay Kumar as according to the petitioner/appellant, the sentence awarded by the trial court is far less than ought to have been imposed on the convicted accused.

In so far as Criminal Revision No.484 of 1998 and Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.32 of 1998 are concerned, I have gone through the judgment and order of the trial court and I find that the only material against these opposite parties was the statement made by co-accused Munna Sah who stated about the involvement of these accused also in the kidnapping but this statement was neither corroborated during the course of trial nor there were any independent witness led by the prosecution to drive home the allegation against these opposite parties and it is considering these circumstances that the trial court by the judgment and order impugned dated 20.5.1998, acquitted these accused of the offences charged.

Considering the circumstances that a period of almost Patna High Court CR. REV. No.484 of 1998 dt.04-04-2014 4 15 years has passed since the trial court has recorded the judgment and order of acquittal and that there is neither any material on record to convict these accused opposite parties nor the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/appellants persuades this Court to hold the judgment impugned to be a perverse finding, I find no reason to interfere with the same and as a consequence the Criminal Revision No.484 of 1998 and Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.32 of 1998 are dismissed.

Re: Criminal Revision No.485 of 1998:

With Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.33 of 1998:
The petitioner/appellant has questioned the judgment and order of sentence awarded to the sole accused-opposite party namely Chunu Sah @ Sanjay Kumar.
Today when the matter was taken up Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.485 of 1998 has produced a certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 1998 preferred by the sole opposite party questioning the judgment and order of the trial court. By the said judgment the opposite party who was the appellant before the Sessions Court, has been acquitted of the charges. Let the judgment passed in Cr. Appeal No.29 of 1998 be kept on record.
Mr. Dinu Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner has Patna High Court CR. REV. No.484 of 1998 dt.04-04-2014 5 submitted that in the circumstances the petitioner would be taking recourse to such remedy as may be available to him in law.
Be that as it may, having considered the circumstances and in consequence of the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 1998, the Criminal Revision No.485 of 1998 and Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.33 of 1998 have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-

__ |__| U |__| T