Patna High Court - Orders
Umesh Ram vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 September, 2014
Author: V.N. Sinha
Bench: V.N. Sinha, Prabhat Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.754 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -315 Year- 2005 Thana -SAMASTIPUR District- SAMASTIPUR
======================================================
Umesh Ram Son of Baldeo Ram, Resident of Village Tal Dushahara, Police
Station - Muffasil, District Samastipur
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanjay Thakur Son of Late Hanuman Thakur
3. Ajay Thakur Son of Late Hanuman Thakur
4. Abhey Thakur @ Pappu Thakur Son of Late Hanuman Thakur. All 2 to
4 are resident of village - Garuara, Police Station - Muffasil, District -
Samastipur
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : M/s Ranjeet Kumar & Kundan Kumar,
Advocates
For the State : Mr. A.Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA)
3 11-09-2014Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to make correction in the father's name of the three private respondents.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State.
3. Informant of Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 315 of 2005 has filed this appeal assailing the judgment dated 07.03.2014 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 801 of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.754 of 2014 (3) dt.11-09-2014 2/5 2006/ 622 of 2006 whereunder private Respondent nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 341, 379, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Act granting the private respondents benefit of doubt as prosecution failed to prove that private respondents committed the aforesaid offences of hurt, wrongful restraint, theft, damage to construction and hurling abuse on the informant, his family members by the name of their caste in public view.
4. Prosecution case as set out in the written report of the Informant, Umesh Ram is that his father Baldeo Ram got a homestead parcha for 7 decimals of land over C.S. plot no. 206 granted by the Circle Officer, Jitwarpur on which his family members were residing for last 60-70 years and on the said land one shed for scheduled castes was being raised under the scheme of Panchayat Samiti. In the execution of the said scheme, three walls had already been raised till DPC, linter level. It is said that on 08.07.2005 at about 8:00 A.M., the three respondents along with their father Hanuman Thakur, resident of nearby village Garuara came with lathi, spear, khanti and country made pistol and assaulted the brother of the informant, Ramesh Ram with fists, slaps and the weapons as also abused him by the name of his caste also tied his brother with rope whereafter Hanuman Thakur further Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.754 of 2014 (3) dt.11-09-2014 3/5 abused the informant, his brother also threatened that he shall cut them into pieces and pieces thrown in Gandak river. After intervention of local people, accused persons ran away taking away six cement bags worth Rs. 1200/- after demolishing the walls raised on the homestead land. Before leaving they also spit on the face of the informant. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against three private respondents and their father Hanuman Thakur for the offences alleged. During trial, Hanuman Thakur left for his heavenly abode which is evident from the 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the accused.
5. The three private respondents denied the charges and claimed to be tried. From the trend of the cross-examination of the witnesses made on behalf of the respondents it appears present case was lodged against them with a view to dispossess the respondents of the lands in question which belong to their father Hanuman Thakur as according to them, the homestead parcha, which was given to the informant in Basgit Parcha Case No. 9 of 2006-07 was given without notice to the land holder Hanuman Thakur. In this connection, private respondents filed Title Suit No. 19 of 2006 pending in the Court of Munsif II, Samastipur. The certified copy of the ordersheet of Basgit Parcha Case No. 9 of 2006-07 as also of the plaint of the aforesaid title suit has been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.754 of 2014 (3) dt.11-09-2014 4/5 brought on record. Homestead parcha of the prosecution party is for Plot No. 586 appertaining to khata no. 232, area 8 decimals. Present occurrence is said to have taken place on plot no. 206 for which after the present occurrence Basgit Parcha Case No. 9 of 2006-07 has been filed at the instance of the informant.
6. Trial court having taken into account the fact that prosecution story of assault on the person of the informant and his brother has not been established as neither the injury report has been brought on record nor the Doctor who is said to have examined the two injured has been examined during trial concluded that there is no material to conclude that present occurrence was preceded by altercation and assault. The constructions for raising a shed was being made on plot no. 206 for which informant and his brother have not been granted any parcha so far. The trial court concluded that present occurrence is preceded by a bona fide land dispute as informant and his brother are trying to grab the land of the private respondents and to forbid such acquisition private respondents have filed title suit.
7. The present occurrence is said to have taken place in public view at 8:00 A.M. but none of the witnesses of the vicinity including those who intervened in the matter have chosen to examine themselves as witness in support of the occurrence. It Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.754 of 2014 (3) dt.11-09-2014 5/5 is only the informant and his three brothers who have come to support the occurrence. Other family members of the informant though present at the place of occurrence, but have not chosen to support the occurrence by examining themselves as witness. The Investigating Officer has also not been examined to establish that the three walls were ever raised on plot no. 206 and demolished. In such circumstances, the trial court has chosen to grant benefit of doubt to the three private respondents.
8. We see no reason to take a different view in the matter. The appeal is dismissed.
(V.N. Sinha, J.) (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Arjun/-
U T