IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.618 of 2008
Jogindar Chaudhry @ Yogendra Chaudhary, son of Late Babab
Chaudhary, resident of village & P.S.-Chanpatiya, District- West
Champaran.
.......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Shyam Babu Prasad, son of Late Ramchandra Prasad.
3. Manoj Prasad, son of Late Ramchandra Prasad.
4. Motar Prasad, son of Late Juthan Prasad.
5. Krishna Prasad, son of Late Ganesh Prasad.
6. Mohan Prasad, son of Late Kedar Prasad.
7. Baldeo Sah, sonof Munnu Lal Prasad.
8. Sunil Prasad, son of Baldeo Prasad.
9. Rajesh Prasad, son of Munulal Prasad.
10. Lal Muni Prasad, son of Late Manager Prasad.
11. Ashok Prasad, son of Late Jeeta Prasad.
12. Subash Prasad, son of Munu Lal Prasad.
13. Lal Babu Prasad, son of Late Ramchandra Prasad.
14. Bharath Prasad, son of Gopal Prasad.
......Opposite Parties.
-----------
7. 12.09.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this
revision application against the judgment and order dated
9.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, West Champaran, Bettiah in Session
Trial No.487 of 1993 by which the accused opposite party nos.
2 to 14 have been acquitted for the offence punishable under
Sections 427, 114, 307, 147 and 323 of the I.P.C.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that there is
dispute relating to land. Motar Jee @ Shiv Shankar Prasad
asked the informant Yogendra Chaudhary in the evening on
2
14.09.1992 to get the matter settled. Thakur Ji Sipahee asked to
take Rs.25,000/-, but the informant refused and told that he
wanted land. On 15.09.1992 in the morning at 6.00 A.M., Shiv
Shankar Prasad @ Motar Jee went to the house of Mohan
Prasad and asked for the Panchayat. Thereafter, Bhola Prasad
sent Sripat, the brother of the informant to call him. The
informant refused to go. Mohan Prasad asked Sripat to get the
matter settled; failing which it will cause loss. Sripat told to get
house in favour of the informant. Mohan Prasad refused. In the
meantime, all of a sudden, all the accused armed with Lathi
and the accused Bhala started breaking the tiled roof of the
informant. Subhash Prasad assaulted the informant with Bhala,
which caused injury in his right leg. To save his life, the
informant and his brother Sripat started throwing brick bats.
After getting information, the police came there and life of
both the persons could be saved. On raising alarm, the
witnesses came there and saw the occurrence. On the basis of
the fardbeyan of the informant, the Chanpatiya P.S. Case
No.260/92 was instituted against the accused. After
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the 13
accused. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the
Court of Session. All the 13 accused were charged under
Section 427. The accused Mohan Prasad was further charged
3
for the offence punishable under Section 114 read with Section
307 of the I.P.C. The accused Subhash Prasad was further
charged for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 307
of the I.P.C. and the remaining were further charged under
Sections 147 and 323 of the I.P.C. which they denied and
claimed to be tried.
The defence of the accused is that no occurrence
has taken place. The informant assaulted the accused Shyam
Babu Prasad for which Chanpatiya P.S. Case No.259/92 dated
15.09.1992 was instituted. There has been land dispute
between both the parties for which the informant has lodged
the case against the accused to save himself from the
Chanpatiya P.S. Case No.259/92 lodged by the accused Shyam
Babu Prasad. After the trial the accused has been acquitted by
the impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsels for the opposite parties.
It appears from the impugned order that there has
been contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
Six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the
prosecution. Out of them, P.W.2 Sripat Chaudhary, is the
brother of the informant, P.W.3, Laldhari Devi is the wife of
Sripat Chaudhary and PW.4 is Yogendra Chaudhary, the
4
informant himself. They are interested witnesses. Witness no.1
Aysa Khatoon has come to the village on the date of
occurrence from another village and there is also contradiction
in her statement. No independent witness has been produced.
In the F.I.R., it has been stated that the informant was assaulted
with spear by the accused Subhas in his right leg, but the
informant and others have stated in their evidence that he was
assaulted in the chest. Witness no.5 Uday Chandra Jha has
been declared hostile.
It further appears that the learned court below has
found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are
contradictory and their evidence are not reliable. As such, they
have not been believed and the accused have been acquitted.
Considering the facts and circumstances stated
above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned
order.
In the result, this revision application is dismissed.
( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
V.K. Pandey