IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.700 of 2002
==================================================
Vyas Narain Singh, son of Laxmi Narain Singh, resident of village-
Semaria, P.S.- Revelganj, District- Saran
…. …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Shyam Karan Pandey, son of Late Naga Pandey, resident of
village-Bishunpur, P.S.- Jalalpur, District- Saran.
3. Rajendra Mishra, son of Munshi Mishra, resident of Police
Line, Chapra, District- Saran.
4. Ajay Kumar Pathak, son of Devendra Pathak, resident of
village-Bishunpur, P.S.- Jalalpur, District- Saran.
…. …. Opposite Parties.
==================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party
: Mr. Vishwanth Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, Addl. P.P.
==================================================
=========
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL)
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
opposite party nos. 2 to 4 that opposite party no.2 Shyam
Karan Pandey died on 15.03.2006. The learned counsel for
the petitioner does not controvert this fact.
Let the name of opposite party no.2 be deleted.
The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.700 of 2002 dt.04-11-2011 2
application against the judgment and order dated
4.07.2002 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions
Judge, Saran at Chapra in S.Tr.No.301/1989 by which all
the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.11.1985
at about 8.00 P.M. Prem Shankar aged about 15 years, son
of the informant was exploding crackers on the occasion of
the Diwali at his Darwaja and the informant was sitting
there. The accused Shyam Karan Pandey (now dead) made
some satirical remarks against Prem Shankar which was
protested by Prem Shankar. There was altercation. When
the informant went there to pacify the matter, the accused
Rajendra Mishra, Sharhu of Shyam Karan Pandey caught
his left hand and accused Ajay Kumar Pathak, son-in-law
of Shayam Karan Pandey caught hold of the informant by
his wait and accused Shayam Karan Pandey took out a
Khanjar from his waist and assaulted him on his forehead.
The accused Shayam Karan Pandey again assaulted the
informant on his shoulder and the informant fell down and
cried for rescue. Thereafter, Madan Singh, Shankar Rai,
Ramayan Rai, Shyam Prasad and Ramanand rushed there.
Shayam Karan also assaulted Prem Shankar and Ravi
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.700 of 2002 dt.04-11-2011 3
Shanker, the sons of the informant with Khanjar causing
them injuries. In the occurrence, the wrist watch was taken
away. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant,
Rivilganj P.S. Case No.123/1985 was instituted against the
accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted.
Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the
court of sessions. After the trial, all the accused were
acquitted by the impugned judgment.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for
the accused opposite parties.
It appears from the impugned judgment that the
prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses, out of
them, P.W.1 Ravi Shankar is the son of the informant,
P.W.2 Rama Nand Singh is the cousin of the informant,
P.W.3 Prem Shankar is the son of the informant, P.W.4
Raj Kumar Devi is the wife of the informant and P.W.5
Vyash Narayan Singh is the informant himself, P.W.6 Dr.
Roop Narayan Lal Dev is the doctor and P.W.7 Srikant
Singh is the S.I. No evidence has been adduced on behalf
of the accused. According to the defence, it is the
prosecution party, who has raided the house of the accused
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.700 of 2002 dt.04-11-2011 4
Shyam Karan Pandey and in order to grab it by evicting
the accused and assaulted him, who became injured and in
order to save the skin the prosecution party has instituted
the case.
It further appears that there are 12 witnesses in the
charge-sheet and the other witnesses are co-villagers of the
informant, who have not been examined. The learned trial
court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution and has found that their evidence is not
convincing and not trustworthy. Hence, the evidence has
not been relied upon. The learned trial court has held that
the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against
the accused and acquitted them.
Considering the facts and circumstances stated
above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment. This petition is dismissed.
( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated the 4th November, 2011
NAFR/V.K. Pandey
