Patna High Court
Kapil Prajapat vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 22 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999CRILJ4810
Author: Sudhir Kumar Katriar
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Katriar
JUDGMENT Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.
1. The petitioner is the first informant against a judge of acquittal. Opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 were the accused persons. This revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment dated 31-7-93, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge VI, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 114/89, whereby the accused persons, who are opposite parties herein, have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 149, 147 and 201, IPC.
2. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 13-10-87, at about 8 a.m. While the petitioner, a rickshaw-puller, was bringing his rickshaw to his house, he found that the accused persons (opposite parties herein), constructing a naad and chabutra to provide fodder to their cattle which had narrowed his Rasta. The informant objected, which led to exchange of hot words on the arrival of the petitioner's father (Kailash Prajapat) and his mother (Phulmani Prajapat). The accused persons brought lathis and on the order of accused Sukhram Prajapat (opposite party No. 5), Rampati Prajapat (opposite party No. 2) assaulted the father of the petitioner on his head and the remaining accused persons armed with lathis assaulted him on different parts of his body. Consequently the informant's father became senseless. He was then taken to hospital and ultimately died. Jamuna Singh, Berender Singh, Kaushal Singh, Mithilesh Singh and Ratan Singh, all co-villagers, had rushed to the place of occurrence and the accused persons on their intervention had left the place. The accused persons were ultimately charged under the aforesaid sections and were tried in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, VI, Gaya.
3. During course of trial, the prosecution had examined the following five witnesses, Jamuna Singh, PW. 1, Mithilesh Singh, PW. 2, Berender Singh, PW. 3, Md. Azizur Rahman, PW. 4 and Ambuj Prasad, PW. 5. PW. 4 had proved the FIR (Ext. 1), PW. 5 had proved the written report (Ext. 2), as well as the endorsement thereon (Ext. 3). PW. 1, PW. 2 and PW. 3 are charge-sheeted witnesses who have denied to have any knowledge of the occurrence. They were declared hostile and were put to cross-examination by the prosecution. In cross-examination by the prosecution, they were confronted with their statements said to have been recorded by the police in course of investigation, They denied having stated before the police that all the accused persons assaulted Kailash Prajapat and his wife with lathi and Danta as a result of which Kailash Prajapat had received head injury. Nothing significant has come in their cross-examination.
3.1. The prosecution had last examined the witness on 6-3-93 and opportunities were given to the prosecution till 24-7-93 to enable it to produce its remaining witnesses. In view of the position that PW. 1, PW. 2 and PW. 3 were declared hostile and in the absence of any other witnesses at all, the trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused persons of all the impugned judgment. Hence this criminal revision at the instance of the informant.
4. None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
5. It appears to be a case of no evidence. PWs. 1, 2 and 3 have been declared hostile. There is no other witnesses to prove the prosecution case. Therefore, the trial Court is right in its conclusion that it is a case of no evidence and the accused persons have rightly been acquitted.
6. Learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 is right in his submission that scope for interference in criminal revision application against the judgment of acquittal is very narrow and on limited grounds, namely, perverse findings recorded by the trial Court, completely overlooking vital evidence on record which, if considered, may change the result of the trial, or shutting out vital evidence.
7. Counsel for the accused persons is equally right in his submission that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 13-10-87 and the consistent view taken by the Courts is that the matter has remained pending for more than ten years with respect to a judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Counsel placed reliance in this connection on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 990 : (1998 Cri LJ 1409) Kishan Swaroop v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi), wherein it has been held that private party has no right to file a revision application instituted on a police report resulting in a judgment of acquittal. The law is well settled and I agree with the submission of the learned counsel.
8. In the result, this revision application fails and is dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 31-7-98, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge VI, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 114 of 1989, is hereby upheld.