IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. APP (DB) No.1308 of 2010
Shankar Pandey, Son of Late Chandradeo Pandey, Resident of Village Bareja, P.O. -
Bareja, P.S. - Daudpur, District - Chapra (Saran).
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Biswajeet Pandey, Son of Vishwanath Pandey, Resident of Village-Bareja, P.S. - Daudpur,
District-Saran.
3. Om Prakash Mishra @ Om Prakash Pandey, Son of Krishna Bihari Mishra, Resident of
Village - Daldali Bazar, P.S. - Chapra Town, District - Chapra. .....Respondent.
For the Appellant : Mr. Shatrughna Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondent : APP.
-----------
06/ 06.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the
appellant, Counsel for the State and Counsel
for the private respondents.
The appellant has challenged the
judgment dated 01.07.2010 passed by the 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in Sessions
Trial No. 235 of 1994, whereby the
accused/respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been
acquitted on the ground that no witness has
turn up for examination.
Learned Counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the purpose of law has
been defeated in this case by the trial court
because there was no summons to any witness
including the informant and on account of the
non-service of summons neither informant nor
any witness could appear and the prosecution
case was closed. It has also been submitted
2
that on this ground alone that summons were
not served the judgment appears to be mala
fide.
We have perused the judgment, the
occurrence is of 24.04.1992. According to the
prosecution case, the fardbeyan was given by
this appellant Shankar Pandey in Sadar
Hospital, Chapra and it was alleged that
after taking meal on 24.04.1992 he was
sleeping at his door. His father and deceased
Uma Shankar were also sleeping adjacent to
him when he woke up his brother Uma Shankar
was on the door, meanwhile, he heard the
sound of firing and proceeded towards his
door and found that his brother was
scuffling. The blood was coming out from his
head. The informant could not witness any
person and his father being an old man could
not understand anything. Thereafter, the
informant took his brother to hospital and
during course of treatment his brother died
within five minutes. On the basis of above
fardbeyan Daudpur P.S. Case No. 23 of 1992
was registered. In course of investigation,
name of the accused persons transpires. One
of the accused namely, Ashok Kumar Chaubey
3
absconded whose trial was separated. The
First Information Report was registered
against unknown. There was enough time for
the informant to get information regarding
the occurrence. None naming of any of the
accused in the First Information Report
itself is an indication that the implication
was later on. However without expressing any
opinion on merit of the case, even after
summons or bailable warrants were ordered to
issue on different occasions, show cause and
demi-official letters were also issued for
production of witnesses. Therefore, this is
not a case in which no process was issued
rather process were issued and the court has
done its duty by issuance of the process
which are required for bringing the witnesses
to the box. Even non-bailable warrants to
witnesses were issued but the prosecution
failed to bring any witness. The court issued
bailable and non-bailable warrants. Not only
that demi-official letters were also issued.
The court has done its best to see that it
gets assistance from the prosecution but it
failed. The court has complied with the
required procedure.
4
This court has finds no merit in
this appeal against acquittal. It is
accordingly dismissed.
(Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)
kksinha/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)