The Patna High Court dismissed an application casted against an acquittal under Sections 147, 323, 435 IPC. The High Court held that prosecution evidence was inconsistent and the complainant failed to prove right, title, and possession over the land.
Condonation of delay allowed, but the S.L.A. is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SLA No.49 of 2013
======================================================
Bagar Rai son of Janak Rai of Village-Katahariya, P.S.-Chhauradano, District-East Champaran .... .... Appellant/s Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 24-04-2014 The present S.L.A. has been filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.06.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raxaul at Motihari, East Champaran in Complaint Case No. 20 of 1999, whereby O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 147, 323, 435 of the I.P.C.
The case of the complainant is that on 26.01.1999 the hut of the complainant situated at Plot No. 89, Khata No. 111, for which there was some dispute from before, was set on fire, as a result of which the articles worth Rs.
Patna High Court SLA No.49 of 2013 (6) dt.24-04-2014
2/4
15,000/- got burnt. The complainant also received burn injury while trying to save his animals.
On cognizance being taken, the charges were framed. The prosecution examined four witnesses to prove the charge under Sections 147, 323, 435 of the I.P.C. but considering the inconsistency in the prosecution evidence and the complainant failed to establish the right, title and possession over the land in question, the opposite parties were acquitted by learned Court below, giving benefit of doubt, since prosecution failed to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on finding prima facie case, the processes were issued and after framing of charge, four P.W.s supported the charge, but considering the minor inconsistency in their evidences, the opposite parties were acquitted.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties, that the opposite parties’ lodged the case at an earlier point of time, since there was dispute with regard to the possession of the hutment, though the complainant and others were subsequently acquitted in the said trial, on the basis of benefit of doubt. The complainant has failed to prove the manner of the occurrence and the witnesses examined were accused in the case lodged by the opposite parties.
Considering the rival submissions of the
Patna High Court SLA No.49 of 2013 (6) dt.24-04-2014
3/4
parties, it appears from the impugned judgment that four P.W.s were examined, out of which P.W. 2 was not cross-examined. Hence the evidences of P.W.s 1, 3 and 4 were considered by learned Trial Court. So far as charge under Section 435 I.P.C. is concerned, P.W. 1 has stated that Raj Nandan set the hutment on fire, after co-accused Pritiya Devi brought the matchbox. P.W. 3 has stated that hutment was put on fire by Pritiya Devi and Hiramati Devi. Though P.W. 4 has stated that fire was lit by only Pritiya Devi, he has subsequently stated that he did not know as to which side lit the fire. Hence, so far as setting the hut on fire is concerned, due to the inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.s, prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 435 I.P.C. beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
It appears that for the same occurrence of 18.09.1999, the opposite parties filed a case against complainant’s side though they were acquitted vide Sessions Trial No. 195 of 1993. The present complaint was filed after one week of the lodging of the case by the opposite parties.
Exhibit-B and Exhibit-2 are the documents/evidence produced with regard to the land in question which reflect that the land is gair mazarua land which clouds the claim of the complainant that he was in possession of the hut.
P.W. 4 has stated that Mangal Rai, Sahdeo
Patna High Court SLA No.49 of 2013 (6) dt.24-04-2014
4/4
Rai, Gobari Rai and Hazari Rai saw the occurrence but all these independent witnesses have been withheld and the witnesses who have been examined were accused in the case lodged by the opposite parties. Hence the witnesses have not been relied by learned Trial Court.
No medical report has been brought on record to prove the charge under Section 323 I.P.C.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, this
Court finds no infirmity with the judgment of acquittal.
Accordingly the application for condonation of
delay is allowed but the S.L.A. is dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
Shageer/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any infirmity with the judgment of acquittal below.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bagar Rai
State of Bihar
Shamser Rai
Raj Nandan Rai
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
