IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1200 of 2008
GAJADHAR YADAV, S/o Kanik Lal Yadav, Resident of
Village-Dharhara, Police Station-Raghopur, District-
Supaul.
.......... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kamleshwari Yadav, S/o Bihari Yadav
3. Prabhu Yadav, S/o Kusum Lal Yadav
4. Permeshwar Yadav, S/o Kusum Lal Yadav
5. Kali Charan Yadav, S/o Bihari Yadav
6. Kusum Lal Yadav, S/o Munga Lal Yadav
7. Kameshwar Yadav, S/o Kali Charan Yadav.
All resident of village Dharahara, Police Station-Raghopur,
District-Supaul.
..............Opposite Parties.
For the Petitioner : Ms. Juhi Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Sri Ram Priyasharan Singh, A.P.P.
-----------
2 24-06-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner, who is the informant of Raghopur
P.S. Case No. 64/94 is aggrieved by the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 27th June, 2008 recorded by the
learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Supaul in
Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1999 whereby the accused
(opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 herein) have been acquitted
of the charge(s) framed under sections 341, 323, 447,
307, 324, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In support of the prosecution case, the
prosecution got examined only three witnesses. PWs. 2
and 3 have been found highly interested witnesses.
2
Learned trial court on evaluation of their evidence, has
found and held that they are not trustworthy, as they
indulged in exaggeration of the prosecution case at
different stages in course of their respective depositions.
It has also noticed the fact that neither the informant
nor the Investigating Officer of the case has been
examined to support the case. The trial court is of the
view that non-examination of the Investigating Officer
has caused serious prejudice to the prosecution as
some of these witnesses had made contradictory
statements in course of investigation before the
Investigating Officer (under section 161 of the Code of
Criminal procedure). Learned counsel for the petitioner
is not able to demonstrate before this court that the
judgment suffers from any patent illegality and/or
perversity.
This court finds no reason to interfere with
the order.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Sujit (Kishore K.Mandal, J. )