Patna High Court
State Of Bihar vs Sudama Bhagat And Ors on 6 March, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Govt. Appeal (DB) No.30 of 1995
======================================================
State of Bihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Sudama Bhagat, S/o- Mahangu Bhagat
2. Janak Bhagat, Son of Satna Bhagat
3. Bishwanath Bhagat, son of
4. Binda Bhagat, son of Marai Bhagat
5. Ramayan Bhagat, son of
6. Subhash Chandra Bhagat, Son of
7. Baliram Bhagat, son o Mahangu Bhagat
8. Gulab Chand Bhagat, son of Bahar Bhagat
All residents of Village- Dhowri, P.S. Mashrak, District- Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 06-03-2018
Challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the
court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in
Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1984/3 of 1986 vide judgment dated
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.30 of 1995 dt.06-03-2018
2/5
30th of March, 1995 for the offences under Sections 302,
302/149, 436/149, 436, 324/149, 323 and 147 of the Indian
Penal Code, this appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar
under Section 378 (1 & 3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Today, during the course of hearing Madam Shashi
Bala Verma, Additional Public Prosecutor produced before us a
report of the Superintendent of Police, Saran dated 25.02.2018
which goes to show that out of the eight respondents, except
accused persons, Respondent No. 2 Janak Bhagat, son of Satna
Bhagat and Respondent No. 8 Gulab Chand Bhagat, son of
Bahar Bhagat, all the other respondent accused have died during
the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands
abated against all the accused persons except Respondent No. 2
Janak Bhagat and Respondent No. 8 Gulab Chand Bhagat.
Even though learned counsel for the appellant tried
to argue that the learned court below has committed an error in
acquitting the respondent accused persons but on going through
the facts and circumstances of the case we find that with regard
to an incident that took place at 10.30 A.M. on 12.03.1981 based
on the information given by one Punyadeo Bhagat (P.W.7), the
fardbeyan was registered and it was the case of the informant
and the prosecution that there was a dispute with regard to land
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.30 of 1995 dt.06-03-2018
3/5
in question, a Gharari land wherein Respondent No. 1 since
dead Sudama Bhagat used to create an issue and threatened the
informant for removing his house and Palani and grant
possession. It is said that Sudama Bhagat got the land measured
by an Amin and came out with a case that the house and the
Palani fell in his share and he used to ask the informant to
remove the same and when nothing was done, it is alleged that
on 11.03.1981 at about 12 noon all the accused persons armed
with lathi, Farsa and other equipment assaulted the informant
and his brother Mangal Bhagat and his son Rajdeo Bhagat and
in the assault Rajdeo Bhagat is said to have died.
The respondent accused persons were prosecuted
for the aforesaid offence and from the statement and evidence
that came on record the learned court found that general and
omnibus allegations are made. Only one injury was sustained by
the deceased and finding the case of the prosecution not proved
the acquittal was ordered.
From the material that has come on record we find
that the main allegations with regard to the assault in question
are against respondent Sudama Bhagat who was carrying a
Barchhi, Bhukhal Singh, another accused person who died
during the trial who was carrying a Farsa and the fatal injury
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.30 of 1995 dt.06-03-2018
4/5
seems to have been caused by the Barchhi and the Farsa used by
Sudama Bhagat and Bhukhal Singh. Sudama Bhagat has died
and the appeal stands abated against him. That apart, there are
allegations of assault by lathi against Subhash Chandra Bhagat
Respondent No. 6 also. This respondent has also died and the
appeal against him also stands abated. So far as the surviving
accused Respondent No. 2 Janak Bhagat and Respondent No. 8
Gulab Chand Bhagat are concerned, from the F.I.R., the
statement of P.W. 7 Punyadeo Bhagat and the statement of other
witness, we find that general and omnibus statements are made
with regard to their presence in the spot in question. No specific
overt act is attributed to them and from the medical report
available on record i.e. Exhibit-7 the Post Mortem Report and
Exhibit 2/1 the X-ray report and the statement of Dr. V.K. Gupta
P.W. 9 who examined the deceased Rajdeo Bhagat on
11.03.1981, the deceased has only suffered one injury on the right side of his head measuring 1½" in diameter and it was because of this injury that he died. This injury is said to have been caused by a hard and blunt weapon like Barchhi used by Respondent No. 1 Sudama Bhagat. As far as the present respondents are concerned, we find that there is no specific overt act attributed to them except for a statement that they were Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.30 of 1995 dt.06-03-2018 5/5 present along with other accused persons. Nothing is alleged against them or proved by the prosecution and taking into consideration all these factors they have been acquitted.
We find no error in the same warranting reconsideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 12.03.2018 Transmission Date