Patna High Court - Orders
Ram Bachan Singh vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 24 September, 2010
Author: Kishore K. Mandal
Bench: Kishore K. Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.420 of 2008
RAM BACHAN PRASAD SON OF LALA PRASAD @ LALA YADAV, R/O-
VILLAGE DUMARI, P.S.- GHOSI, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. UMESH SINGH, SON OF BALIRAM SINGH
3. NARESH SINGH, SON OF BALIRAM SINGH
4. SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNIL SINGH, SON OF UMESH SINGH
5. PASHUPATI SINGH SON OF UDBANSH SINGH
6. JITENDRA SINGH SON OF CHANDESHWAR SINGH
7. BAMESHWAR SINGH SON OF SURESH SINGH
ALL ABOVE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- DUMARI, P.S.- GHOSI,
DISTRICT- JEHANABAD.
For the petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. : Mr. Naresh Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
-----------
3 24.09.2010Petitioner is the injured (P.W. 4). He is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.3.2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Jehanabad in S.C. no. 8484 of 1999 whereby, on a consideration of the materials, the accuseds (O.P. nos. 2 to 7) herein have been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 307 IPC. One of the accused was also acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He is also aggrieved by the order passed under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for the short the Code) whereby the convicts have been directed to be released on their entering into a bond of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties for a period of two years for maintaining peace and good behaviour.
I have perused the reasonings assigned by learned trial Court in paragraph 14 of the judgment impugned. It was held that this P.W. 4 was not found to have received any fire arms 2 injury as the injury report (Ext.1) did not disclose any such injury. Considering the nature of injury sustained by the injured, a view has been taken that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out. Consequently, acquittal has been recorded under the aforesaid Section. Since there was no injury found on P.W. 4 caused by fire arm, the court below has also acquitted the accused of the charge punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any apparent illegality/impropriety in such consideration of the matter by the learned trial court. In that view of the matter, the first grievance of the petitioner is found to be erroneous and misplaced.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to Annexure-1 that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 namely Umesh Singh and Pashupati Singh were earlier tried and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 147 and 323 by judgment and order dated 31.5.1988 passed in Tr. No. 752/1988 (State versus Surajdeo Singh & Ors). It is contended that wrong submission was made on behalf of the convicts/opposite parties that the accuseds did not carry any criminal antecedent and/or convicted on any occasion in the past.
Considering the materials brought on record, this Court finds force in the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.
After having heard the parties, and on a careful 3 perusal of the judgment impugned, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order cannot be interfered with so far as acquittal recorded under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act is/are concerned. Later part of the order dated 5.3.2008, however, requires reconsideration in view of the facts brought on record by learned counsel for the petitioner .
Consequently, the application is disposed of in the following manner:
First part of the judgment impugned whereby the opposite parties have been only found guilty of the minor sections of the Indian Penal Code is/are concerned, the same does not require any interference. So far later part of the order dated 5.3.2008 passed in terms of Section 235 of the Code is concerned, the court below is required to have a fresh look considering the materials on record which have been taken note hereinabove. Consequently, that part of the order dated 5.3.2008 is quashed and set aside. Matter goes on remand to the learned trial Court for passing a fresh order of sentence in terms of Section 235 of the Code . The Court below shall be uninfluenced by any observation made by this court in the present order.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J. ) pkj