Dismissed

Gurudayal Thakur v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC18 Apr 2014SLA/43/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Leave Appeal challenging the acquittal in a criminal case involving assault, snatching, and property disputes was dismissed. The court found no infirmity in the lower court's judgment which acquitted the accused due to serious inconsistencies in witness testimony, lack of independent witnesses, and unexplained delay in filing the complaint.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gurudayal Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

Patna High Court SLA No.43 of 2013 (7) dt.18-04-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.43 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== 1. Gurudayal Thakur Son Of Sri Budhiyar Thakur Resident Of VillageDaing, Police Station- Baheri, District- Darbhanga .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mithilesh Kumar Thakur Son Of Jai Krishna Thakur Resident Of VillageAthar, Police Station- Baheri, District- Darbhanga 3. Subhadra Devi Wife Of Mithilesh Kumar Thakur Resident Of VillageAthar, Police Station- Baheri, District- Darbhanga 4. Jirwa Devi Wife Of Shri Santosh Thakur Resident Of Village- Daing, Police Station- Baheri, District- Darbhanga 5. Santosh Thakur Son Of Shri Mahendra Thakur Resident Of VillageDaing, Police Station- Baheri, District- Darbhanga 6. Sudama Devi Wife Of Shri Mahendra Thakur Resident Of VillageDaing, Police Station- Baheri, District- Darbhanga 7. Mahendra Thakur Son Of Late Nathuni Thakur Resident Of VillageDaing, Police Station- Baheri, District- Darbhanga .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 7 18-04-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present Special Leave to Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.5.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Darbhanga in Complaint Case No. 1351 of 2003 whereby O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted from the charge under Sections 147,448, 323,427,354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the complainant P.W. 4 had purchased the part of land in Khata no. 745, Khesra No. 4387 (old)

¶4

Patna High Court SLA No.43 of 2013 (7) dt.18-04-2014

¶5

new 14387,9105 and was cutting the old mango tree on his plot, when the accused came and assaulted the complainant, who ran into his house. The accused persons followed him, entered into the courtyard and Santosh Kumar caught hold of the hair of the complainant’s wife (PW 3), assaulted her and snatched gold ear ring worth Rs.6000 and silver chain worth Rs.3000.

¶6

On cognizance being taken, charges were framed for the offences under Sections 147,448,323,427,354 and 379 IPC. The prosecution examined five witnesses and relied upon documentary evidence to prove their case.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that witnesses have supported the accusation but they have not been relied upon since they failed to disclose Khata and Khesra numbers of the P.O. plot.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Opposite parties that none of the witnesses have disclosed the Khata and Khesra number of the alleged land. It is admitted that both the complainant and the opposite parties have land on the same khata and plot number, hence it is not proved that the complainant was cutting the mango tree on his land or some body else’s land.

¶9

After going through the impugned judgment, it appears that the prosecution examined five witnesses out of which P.Ws 1

¶10

Patna High Court SLA No.43 of 2013 (7) dt.18-04-2014

¶11

and 2 are brothers of the complainant, PW 3 is the wife of the complainant, P.W. 4 is the complainant himself and P.W. 5 is the formal witness. It is the specific case of the complainant that the occurrence took place for an hour and several witnesses saw the occurrence but no independent witness has been examined. There are serious inconsistencies with regard to the manner of occurrence, since the complainant and the witnesses claimed that part of occurrence took place near the orchard and P.W. 3 was assaulted inside the house, whereas P.W. 3 deposed that she was assaulted in the orchard. This vital contradiction with regard to place and manner of occurrence coming through the complainant hits to the root of the prosecution case. The occurrence took place on 18.10.2003 at about 7-8 A.M., whereas the complaint was filed on 20.10.2003. No explanation for delay has been offered by the witnesses including the complainant.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

¶13

The Special Leave to Appeal stands dismissed.

¶14

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

¶15

Anil/-

Gurudayal Thakur v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gurudayal Thakur v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munni Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Kauleshwar Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Chandrika Yadav and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ravi Prakash Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Jay Prakash Chaudhary @ Ajay Prakash Chaudhary Vs The State Of Bihar