Kameshwar Singh vs The State of Bihar and Others

Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.—The informant- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2002 passed by the learned Fast Track Court No. 1, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 1990/99 of 2001 by which the accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/149/379/326/148 I.P.C.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.3.1989 at about 11 a.m. the informant Kameshwar Singh was going on his bicycle with his daughter Pinki Kumari aged about 11 years who was a pillion rider to purchase Rang Abir when he reached near the Darwaza of Rajendra Sah, he found the accused persons sitting at Darwaza of Rajendra Sah one of the accused Biju Sah saw the informant and told that he is also Rajput and instigated others to assault him. Thereafter, accused Mahendra Sah inflicted farsa blow from backside the informant fell down from the bicycle. Farsa blow caused injury on his back above waist of the informant. Rajendra Sah assaulted the informant by sword. Suresh Sah inflicted one blow of farsa on right leg of informant. After getting the assault by the accused persons the informant became senseless. It is further alleged that accused persons took away his Janta Watch and cash Rs. 421 and the bicycle. Pinki Kumari aged about 11 years also saw the occurrence. The statement of informant was recorded by the police in the clinic of Dr. Alimuddin. Thereafter, on the basis of fard beyan Vidhyapati Nagar P. S. Case No. 14 of 1989 dated 23.3.1989 was instituted against six accused persons. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against them. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session. Charges were framed against them. After trial they were acquitted vide the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of sufficient material the learned trial court has acquitted the accused which is not in accordance with law. The finding is perverse and this case requires interference by this Court.

Learned counsel for opposite parties submits that the learned trial court has considered the evidence carefully and has not found cogent reason for the conviction of the accused. This Court is not required to interfere with the impugned judgment.

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that the learned trial court has not considered the evidence in the right perspective and has acquitted all the accused. It appears from the order dated 9.9.2002 passed by a Bench of this Court that the acquittal of accused Subodh Sah, Mahendra Sah and Vivek Sah opposite party no. 3, 4 and 7 respectively does not require any interference by this Court and as such the appeal has been dismissed against them and the appeal was to be heard against the accused Suresh Sah, Rajendra Sah and Braj Kishore Sah opposite party nos. 2, 5 and 6 respectively. Accordingly, notices have been issued to them.

Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned judgment so far accused Suresh Sah, Rajendra Sah and Braj Kishore Sah is concerned, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned trial court for considering the evidence afresh for the trial of these accused persons and passing order in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.

In the result, this revision application is allowed to the aforesaid extent.