IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.112 of 2008
Shivji Singh son of Late Gopal Singh,
resident of village- Mathurapur, P.S.- Paroo,
District- Muzaffarpur.
.... Informant-Petitioner.
Versus
1. Tulsi Rai son of Sri Bramhdeo Rai
resident of village- Dhengpur, P.S.
Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur.
.. (Accused)- Opposite Party.
2. The State of Bihar
... Opposite Party.
-----------
3. 02.09.2011 The informant- petitioner has
preferred this revision application against the
judgment and order dated 5.11.2007 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.
1, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 572 of
2002 by which the accused Tulsi Rai, opposite
party no. 1 has been acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 427, 384, 307/149
I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution case, in brief, is
that the firm of the informant-petitioner was
allotted work of construction of Dewaria-
Jafarpur- Ambara Road in the district of
Muzaffarpur. While the work was in progress,
the accused Tulsi Rai started demanding
Rs.50,000/- . On 11.2.2001 while the work was
going on accused Tulsi Rai along with Pappu
Singh, Binod Singh, Sanjay Singh, Ashok Singh,
2
Birendra Singh, Arun Rai, Pachu Rai and
Chandrika Rai came there armed with firearms
and explosive substance. Tulsi Rai told the
petitioner to pay Rangdari of Rs.50,000/-
failing which the construction work will not
proceed. Tulsi Rai threw ten drums of Coaltar
on the road and set it on fire and fired from
his gun which hit one of the workers of the
petitioner. Thereafter,accused Pappu Singh also
fired which hit the informant and his brother.
All the accused persons indiscriminately fired
and thereafter left the place of occurrence by
threatening the informant.
On the basis of written information
of the informant- petitioner, Paroo P. S. Case
No. 22 of 2001 was instituted. After
investigation charge-sheet No. 63 of 2002 was
submitted against the accused Tulsi Rai showing
investigation pending against the remaining
accused persons of the FIR. The case was
committed to the Court of Sessions vide
Sessions Trial No. 572 of 2002. Charge was
framed against the accused. After trial the
accused opposite party no. 1 has been
acquitted.
The defence of the accused is total
3
denial in participation of the occurrence. It
has been submitted that Tulsi Rai has been
falsely implicated in this case. It is also
submitted that as a matter of fact he was
admitted in the Clinic of Dr. Birendra Kishore
in Juran Chapra which has been supported by the
I. O. of this case. During investigation I. O.
got information that Tulsi Rai was in an
unconscious condition and was at the clinic of
Dr. Birendra Kishore where his treatment was
going on due to injury caused to him by bullet.
In this petition it has been
submitted that from the evidence of P. Ws. 8 to
12 it is clear that all the witness have
supported the prosecution case beyond doubt but
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have
not correctly been considered by the learned
trial court.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that the learned trial Court has considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and found them not trustworthy as
such their evidence has not been relied upon.
No interference by this Court is required.
It appears from the impugned order
that the prosecution has examined altogether 14
4
witnesses out of them P. Ws. 1 to 7 have been
declared hostile by the prosecution and they
have stated that they do not know about the
alleged occurrence whereas they are charge-
sheeted witnesses in this cases. It further
appears that P.W. 12, Shivji Singh is the
informant in this case and he has stated that
his construction work was going on the date of
occurrence i.e. 11.2.2001. The accused Tulsi
Rai along with others came there and demanded
Randari. Altercation took place and the accused
Pappu Singh ordered to fire, upon which the
accused Tulsi Rai fired. He sided and the
bullet hit on the person of Dilip Mahto. He
also stated that accessed persons turned down
the drums of coal tar and Tulsi Rai lit fire on
it. He has also stated that his brother Gaya
Singh had died before one year and the injured
Dilip Mahto was threatened by the men of Tulsi
Rai, hence he left the village and went away.
He has stated that the police brought three
injured persons including himself for medical
treatment at Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur. He
has denied the suggestion that at the time of
occurrence Tulsi Rai was not present. Injured
Dilip Mahto, the alleged worker of the
5
informant who had received firearm injury has
not been examined in this case. It also appears
that the learned trial Court has dealt with and
considered the evidence of other prosecution
witnesses also. It also appears from the
evidence of P.W. 14, I. O. of this case that
the evidence of the prosecution witness are
full of contradictions regarding appearance and
participation in the occurrence by the accused
Tulsi Rai.
After Considering the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and after hearing the
learned counsel for both the parties, learned
trial court has come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove
charge against the accused Tulsi Rai and his
participation and complicity in the occurrence
cannot be believed. The evidence of Ext. A. and
B clearly indicates that no man in the name of
Dilip Mahto of village Kuriya P.S. Pipra,
Distt. East Champaran exist and he is alleged
to have injured of the occurrence and
accordingly the accused opposite party no. 1
has been acquitted.
Considering the facts and
circumstances stated above, I do not find any
6
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.
In the result, this application is
dismissed.
Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)