Susila Singh vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the informant appellant, learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the private respondents Nos. 2 to 5.

The informant appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 20.5.2017, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad, in S. T. No. 146 of 2006, whereby, the accused respondents Nos. 2 to 5, who were facing the trial for the offences under Sections 147, 324, 307 / 149 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted after trial.

I.A. No. 6844 of 2017 has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal.

The impugned Judgment shows that initially a police case was instituted, which was Dhansar P.S. Case No. 259 of 2000, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, registered on the basis of fardbeyan of the appellant Ashok Kumar Singh, the brother of injured in the case, stating therein that on 9.5.2000, while the informant and his brother were going on a scooter and passing through the market area at about 8.45 PM to 9.00 PM in the night, they saw the accused-respondents and two more persons near a shop, and it is alleged that when they proceeded further, on the order given by accused Jai Prakash Singh, accused Prem Prakash Singh fired pistol causing injury on the brother of the informant, due to which he became unconscious. The police case was investigated upon and after investigation, the police submitted the final form in the case, finding the case to be clueless.

Aggrieved thereby, the protest-cum-complaint petition was filed by the informant appellant against the final form, in which, allegations were made against the Investigating Officer also. The said protest petition was treated as complaint and after initial enquiry, the case was committed to the Court of Session.

The impugned Judgment shows that six witnesses were examined by the prosecution in the case and the material witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The I.O. of the case, Birendra Prasad Singh was also examined as P.W.-6. On the basis of the evidences on record, it transpired that both the parties were at highly inimical terms and there were murder cases between the parties, in which, there was conviction also and one case was pending. It also appears from the evidence on record that the I.O. had found during investigation that it was a dark night at the time of occurrence, and there was no electricity in the area and as such, the accused persons could not be identified. The defence has also brought on record the RTI obtained from the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, showing that on 9.5.2000 from 8.50 PM to 11.00 PM, there was no electricity supply in the area.

From the discussions made in the impugned Judgment, it also appears that even though in the FIR, it was alleged that upon getting the gun shot injury, the brother of the informant became unconscious and was not in a position to give his statement, but the evidence of the Doctor showed that he was conscious and he was in a position to give statement, but still his statement was not recorded by the police.

Taking into consideration all these facts and in particular, the fact that both the parties were at highly inimical terms, by the impugned Judgment dated 20.5.2017, the Court below has found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused and has accordingly, acquitted the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the informant-appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, all the material witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and the oral evidence of the witnesses was also corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.5 Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, who had found the gun shot injury on the back of the brother of the informant. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case, in which, the impugned Judgment of acquittal be set aside, and the accused respondents be convicted and suitably punished for the offence committed.

Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the accused-respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has pointed out that both the parties were at highly inimical terms and it has come in the evidence that before the occurrence, the area was absolutely dark and there was no electricity supply. In that view of the matter, the accused could not be identified. It is also submitted that only due to the enmity between the parties, the accused respondents have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that on the basis of the materials on record, the accused persons have been rightly acquitted by the Trial Court below, and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, we find that the enmity between the parties is an admitted fact in this case. It is also an admitted fact that there were several criminal cases pending between the parties. There were cases relating to murder and the material had been brought on record to show that the father of the accused Ved Prakash Singh and Prem Prakash Singh was murdered and in the said case, the informant appellant Ashok Kumar Singh was an accused and ultimately, he was convicted by the Trial Court. The impugned Judgment shows that in the evidence it had come that at the time of occurrence, there was no electricity in the area and it was a dark night. It has also come in the evidence that near the shop, i.e., the place where the accused persons are claimed to have been identified, there was not even generator supply. As such, it is apparent from the evidence on record that there was no means of identification of the accused persons at the place of occurrence.

We find that even though the material witnesses have supported the prosecution case, the accused-respondents have rightly been acquitted by the Trial Court below, in view of the admitted enmity between the parties, and there being no means for identification of the accused persons in the dark night. As such, we find no illegality in the impugned Judgment dated 20.5.2017, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad, acquitting the accused respondents Nos. 2 to 5 from the charges, worth interference by this Court.

Since we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of Acquittal, no question arises for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. As such, the interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 6844 of 2017 stands dismissed.

Consequently, this appeal also stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.