IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1358 of 2007
MD. SAJJAD SON OF ABDUL SAMID KHAN RESIDENT
PAITHAN CHOWK P.S. JAMUI DISTRICT JAMUI
...PETITIONER
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. MANGULU MIAN SON OF ALI MOHAMMAD MIAN
3. MD. SAFFARUDDIN MAIN SON OF ALI
MOHAMMAD MIAN
4. SAHIB MIAN SON OF MD. MUSSAIN MIAN
5. MD. KALIM MIAN SON OF PARO MIAN, ALL
RESIDENTS OF VILALGE PAITHAN CHOWK,
JAMUI, P.S. JAMUI, DISTRICT JAMUI.
...ACCUSED/OPP.PARTIES
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Thakur &
:Mr.S.P.Parasay, Advocates
For opposite party : Mr. Amar Prakash
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP
-----------
04. 12.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is the informant of the FIR (Annexure-1) which
gave rise to Sessions Trial No.448/95 of the court of learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Jamui. Learned trial court on a consideration
of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution as also the
defence acquitted the accused persons (o.p.nos.2 to 5 herein) of the
charger(s) punishable under diverse sections of the Penal Code
including section 307 IPC which was lodged in respect of an
occurrence that had taken place on 26.03.1994. In all, seven witnesses
were examined on behalf of the prosecution. With regard to a piece of
land, the occurrence appears to have taken place. There is already
another proceeding pending between the parties. Learned trial court
found that P.Ws.6 and 7 who were cited and produced as the
independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution case. They
were thus declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. According
2
to the informant (P.W.5), the occurrence had taken place at about 5.30
P.M. His father (P.W.3) deposed to the effect that the occurrence had
taken place at 7.30.P.M. In the light of two versions with respect to the
time of occurrence, learned trial court has referred to the evidence of
the doctor(P.W.4) who is said to have examined the injured(s) of their
injuries at 7.20.P.M. Learned trial court on a consideration of the
entire matter, has concluded as under in paragraph 23 of the judgment:
“23. Keeping in view the enmity between the parties
non support of the prosecution case by the independent
witnesses, support of prosecution case by interested and
inimical witness only major contradictions on the point
of nature of assault, manner of assault time of
occurrence and the view of the Dr. that the injuries may
be caused by fall, self inflicted and non examination of
the I.O., I am of the view that the prosecution has not
been able to prove the allegation against the accused
persons, beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and
doubt has been created over the prosecution case and it
is well settled principle that the benefit of doubts
always goes to the defence and not to the prosecution.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate that view taken by the court below is palpably absurd
and/or perfunctory meriting any interference by this Court.
The application lacks merit which is accordingly
dismissed.
( Kishore K. Mandal )
hr