IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.23 of 2009
(Arising out of judgment and order dated 30th of May, 2009 passed
by Additional Judicial Commissioner, XVIth, Ranchi in S.T. No.778 of 1992/
S.T. No.618 of 1997)
The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi ...Appellant
Versus
1. Krishna Singh
2. Dharmendra Singh
3. Sanjay Kumar
4. Mahendra Singh
5. Binod Kumar Pandey
6. Kamaldeo Mishra @ Kamlu Mishra
7. Deepak Singh @ Deepak Kumar
8. Dinesh Prasad @ Dipesh Kumar
9. Sunil Kumar Mishra
10. Arvind Thakur
11. Udai Shankar @ Prasad ... .... ..... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
------
For the Appellant: Mr. T.N. Verma, A.P.P. &
Mr. Amresh Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Respondents: M/s K.K. Ojha, Umesh Kumar Singh, Anuj Kumar,
Sudhir Kumar, Rajiv Kumar Shekhar &
S.N.P. Roy, Advocates
-----
12 /28.03.2011
Although this matter has been listed for orders on the ground that
fresh steps for service by the opposite party No.11 have not been taken despite
repeated opportunities, but with the assistance of the learned counsel for the
State and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for
the informant we have heard the matter on merits.
This is an appeal against the acquittal of the 11 accused jointly tried
under Sections 147, 148, 307/34 and 307/149 I.P.C. and Sections 25(1-B), 26/27
of the Arms Act and 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act.
The prosecution story is that on 29.03.1991, i.e. 20 years ago, at
about 7.00 a.m. all the accused armed with pistols, bombs, lathi and Farsa
surrounded the house of the victim. Several bombs were exploded, according to
the prosecution case, however, there is one single injury of lathi. Although it has
been alleged that some splinter injuries were also received by some other
persons but no injury report was brought on record, neither the Doctor who had
examined the injuries was examined as a prosecution witness. In the
2.
circumstances, the trial Court has acquitted the accused in this case of large
scale implication of as many as 11 accused.
Considering the above facts, we are of the opinion that this
judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this appeal
against the acquittal is dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
NKC