Patna High Court
G. APP. (DB)/16/1989 of THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs RAM DEO SINGH and ORS on 1 January 1989
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (DB) No.16 of 1989 ======================================================= This Govt. Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.2.1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 383/2 of 1981/88 by Shri Ram Prit Pathak, 7 th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (DB) No.16 of 1989
=======================================================
This Govt. Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.2.1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 383/2 of 1981/88 by Shri Ram Prit Pathak, 7[th] Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram.
======================================================= The State Of Bihar…………………………………….... .... Appellant/s Versus 1.Ram Deo Singh, S.I., S. P. Office, Rohtas 2.Manohar Singh, A. S.I. S.P. Office, Rohtas 3.Lalita Singh son of Kedar Singh 4.Din Dayal Pandey son of Ram Naresh Pandey 5.Shivadhin Singh Son of Ehhacari Singh 6.Vijay Bahadur Singh Son of Siyadhin Singh 7.Hira Singh Son of Chandrika Singh 8.Shri Bhagwan Singh son of Markandey Pandey 9.Sheo Nath Singh son of Sheekhkhan Singh 10.Umraon Singh son of Sheekkhan Singh 11.Markandey Singh Son of Ram Naresh Singh 12.Dadan Singh son of Shiyadhin Singh 13.Gouri Shankar Singh son of Umraon Singh 14.Subedar singh son of Sukkhan Singh 15.Ramashankar Singh son of Prameshwar Singh 16.Jagdish Singh son of Naresh Singh 17.Sita Ram Singh son of Umraon Singh 18.Ram Jee Singh Son of Markandey Singh 19.Dipty Singh son of Ramkewal Singh 20.Jai Prakash Singh son of Jognarayan Singh All resident of village- Samahouta P.S.- Mohania, District- Rohtas 21.Vidya Singh Son of Bagmath Singh of village- Machhanhate, P.s.- Durgawati, District- Rohtas 22.Sheo Jee singh son of Kapildeo Singh 23.Paras Singh Son of Kapildeo Singh All resident of village- Pipara, P.s.- Durgawati District- Rohtas 24.Shiva Shankar Pandey, Constable, 25.Noneshwar Soran, Constable 26.Paras Nath Pathak, Hawildar 27.Ram Nirekhan Thakur Constable All B.M.P.-2, Dehari Commandant Office, Rohtas
.... .... Respondent/s
=======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP For the Respondent/s : None ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LALORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA)Date: 14-09-2012
No one appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant is present.
2. The instant Government Appeal is against the judgment dated 7.2.1989 passed by the learned 7[th] Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 383/2 of 1981/88 whereby the respondents named above have been acquitted from the charges under section 235 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Altogether 27 accused persons were charged under sections 120B and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Raj Narain Singh, Sheo Jee Singh, Manohar Singh, Ramdeo Singh, Shri Bhagwan Singh (deceased), Hira Singh and Vidya Singh further stand charged under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. During the pendency of this appeal before this Court, respondent nos. 1, 8,11,14, 18 and 24 have died and against them this Government Appeal was ordered to be abated vide order dated 3.9.2007 and 6.7.2007 respectively.
5. The occurrence was of the mid night of 22/23.6.1979. Lachi Devi, wife of Shri Kewal Pasi is the informant of the case. She alleged that at about mid night there was firing and the cause of the occurrence was non-voting in favour of a particular candidate. The FIR was registered under sections 148, 149, 323, 427, 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation chargesheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. Accordingly, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the charges were explained to the accused persons who pleaded their innocence and claimed to be tried. During trial altogether 16 prosecution witnesses were examined.
6. The Trial Court analyzed the evidences threadbare and found that no connecting evidence could be produced before it which would result in conviction. Accordingly, benefit of doubt was given. It was the occurrence of the dark night and no source of identification was claimed. That ground was enough to create a doubt in the mind of the court and the court reached to its conclusion that the prosecution has failed in proving the charge against the accused persons beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts.
7. An order of acquittal is an indication that the accused persons have been held to be innocent. There is presumption of innocence in the mind of the accused under Indian Penal Jurisdiction. The order of conviction could be set aside if it is shown by the prosecution that the judgment is illegal and improper. If no illegality or impropriety is shown, then the order of acquittal cannotbe interfered with. Similar is the case here. The order of Trial Court is based upon the sound reasoning. The source of identification when the occurrence is of midnight is one of the basis on which result can be based. That was not proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts, so order of acquittal was passed. The judgment of Trial Court is based upon the sound reasonings and needs no interference by this Court.
8. In the result this appeal is dismissed.
(Shyam Kishore Sharma, J)
Patna High Court Dated 14[th] September, 2012 Avin.
(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)