Complaint Appeal No. 4 of 1997 (R)
(Against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.06.1997 passed by 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1993.)
--------------
Vijay Singh ............ Appellant
Versus
1. Jaswant Singh
2. Lakhan Singh
3. Babu Lal Singh
4. Kailash Singh
5. Barun Singh
6. Dharamdeo Singh
7. Shakoor Mian
8. Shaligram Singh
9. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) .......... Opp. Parties
---------------
For the Complainant-Appellant : Mr. Ayush, Advocate (Amicus Curie)
For the Respondent : Miss Neha Prashant, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, A.P.P.
--------------
P R E S EN T
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
By court: Nobody appears on behalf of the complainant-appellant on
repeated call. On the request of the Court, Mr. Ayush appeared on behalf
of the complainant-appellant. Heard learned counsel for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated
10.06.1997
passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal
Appeal No. 67 of 1993, by which judgment, the learned Judicial Magistrate
acquitted all the opposite parties.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellate court that in spite
of evidences produced in the case, he has acquitted the accused persons
from the charges.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has stated that
learned 1st Additional Sessions, Judge, Chatra, after going through the
evidences, has found that there was only four witnesses in the prosecution
case and out of four witnesses, the two witnesses namely P.W.3, Uttim
Bhuyian and P.W.4, Bichhuwa Bhuyian supported the same. They were
not produced by the complainant for their cross examination after charges
were framed against them. Two named witnesses in complaint Mr. Ram
Lakhan Singh and Amir Singh were not examined by the prosecution, and
moreover, the person, who had purchased the pumping set said that the
theft article was purchased by Sri Nakul Singh, own brother of the
informant-complainant. He was also not examined by the prosecution, and
as such, learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused.
5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the records, I
find that the complainant, Bijoy Singh lodged a complaint case on
07.10.1984 stating therein that he was irrigating his paddy crops by a
pumping set purchased by him having bearing no. 30013179 and engine
no. 2175, when the members of opposite parties-accused came there and
after abusing him removed the same.
Police started investigation on the said F.I.R. of theft and finding the
case not true submitted final form, where the protest-cum-complaint petition
was filed by the learned S.D.J.M., Chatra having Complaint no. 132/84.
The learned S.D.J.M., Chatra during enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
after examining the prosecution witness, as also the opposite party
Shaligram Singh found the defence true and dismissed the complaint. The
complainant filed the criminal revision, there after on remand by Sessions
Judge, the court of learned S.D.J.M., took cognizance and the case was
tried by the Gopal Kumar Roy, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra, who
found the accused guilty on the basis of the evidences and sentenced the
respondents for one month simple imprisonment under Section 143 of the
Indian Penal Code, three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 379
and three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 to the sole
accused Shaligram Singh.
Again, an appeal was filed by the accused persons before the
learned Sessions Judge, Chatra. The learned 1 st Additional Sessions
Judge, Chatra, by his impugned judgment, again acquitted the accused
persons and found the case to be false. Then the complainant again filed
this appeal.
6. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. However with the help
of the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as Amicus Curie, I also
find that the two main witnesses namely P.W.3, Uttim Bhuyian and P.W.4,
Bichhuwa Bhuyian were not produced for cross examination after the
charges were framed and their evidences before the charge cannot be
considered under Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act, since, they were
knowingly not produced by the prosecution for cross examination.
Moreover, the appellant Shaligram Singh denied the receipt granted by him
i.e. Ext.1 and stated that the theft was committed, while the complainant
stated that it was purchased by his brother Nakul Singh. But, the said
Nakul Singh was also not examined by the prosecution.
7. In that view of the matter, the entire prosecution case has become
doubtful and the appellate court has rightly acquitted the respondents.
8. I find no merit in this Complaint appeal. The same is accordingly
dismissed.
[Pradeep Kumar, J.]
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 1st February, 2010
R.K./NAFR