This revision dismissed a petitioner seeking to set aside an acquittal. The High Court held that lower courts correctly perused evidence and found no reason to interfere with their concurrent findings dismissing the charges against the accused.
Revision application 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 CRIMINAL REVISION No.1146 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2003 Thana- TARIYANI CHOWK District- Sheohar
======================================================
Urmila Devi wife of Triplurari Singh resident of Village - Jagdishpur Kothiya, P.S. - Tariyani, District - Sheohar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate For the R No. 1, 2 & 5 : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
6 07-12-2023
the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to file Vakalatnama .
2 . Let it be taken on record.
3 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
4 . By filing this revision application, the informantpetitioner is seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 25.08.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sheohar in Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2016 whereby and whereunder he has affirmed
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1146 of 2017(6) dt.07-12-2023 2/5
the judgment of acquittal dated 19.10.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar in T.R. No. 844 of 2016, G.R. No. 52 of 2003.
5 . As per the prosecution story, in the night of 05.02.2003, all the accused persons lashed with deadly weapons entered into the house of the informant in search of her husband and when the informant stated that her husband had gone to Patna for treatment, then on the orders of Yugal Singh, Dilip Singh assaulted her with farsa on head due to which she sustained cut injury on forehead. It is alleged that other accused also assaulted her by means of lathi , leg and fist and they also looted several articles, ornaments and cash Rs. 3,000/- from her house.
6 . It appears that in this case after investigation the Police submitted a final form saying that no sufficient materials could be found to proceed against the accused persons but the learned Magistrate differed with the police report, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 379 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to all the eight accused persons. During trial, the charge was amended and Section 27 of the Arms Act was also added.
7 . The prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, Mahendra Singh (P.W.1), Rajeev Ranjan Singh (P.W.2), Urmila
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1146 of 2017(6) dt.07-12-2023 3/5
Devi, who is the informant of the case as P.W.3 and Rajesh Kumar (P.W.4). On behalf of defence, some documents were exhibited in defence. In course of trial, two accused namely Ram Janam Singh and Nand Kishore Singh died.
8 . The learned trial court noticed that the prosecution witnesses were not consistent. According to the ferdbeyan of P.W.3, the alleged occurrence took place in the night of 05.02.2003, but in her evidence this witness stated that the occurrence took place on 06.02.2023 at 9:00 am. Neither any independent witness was examined in this case nor the Investigating Officer of the case deposed. No injury report of the informant could be proved in course of trial and no Doctor was examined to substantiate the allegation that the informant was assaulted.
9 . The learned trial court acquitted the accused persons in absence of there being cogent evidence to prove the guilt against them beyond all reasonable doubts.
10 . The appellate court examined the judgment of the learned trial court and noticed that the ferdbeyan clearly speaks the names of the witnesses who came and saw when the accused persons were going out after committing the alleged crime but presence of P.W.1 was not talked or mentioned. The P.W.1 and other talked about gun at the earlier time. but later on they
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1146 of 2017(6) dt.07-12-2023 4/5
described that as country-made pistol. All the witnesses were close relatives, the learned appellate court took a view that dearth of any neutral witness and clear cut recent enmity over the genuine matter and the contradictions depicts something other than the probability of reality. The learned appellate court, therefore safely held that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond doubt rather miserably failed on its part in proving the guilt against the accused persons.
11 . Before this Court, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned courts below failed to take note of the fact that all the four prosecution witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the learned trial court as well the appellate court have wrongly relied on the minor contradictions highlighted by the reports.
12 . On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 5 submits that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have rightly appreciated the evidences which were brought on the record. It is submitted that the informant, who claimed herself as injured, did not prove an injury report in course of trial. There were contradictions with respect to the name of the person who had allegedly assaulted the informant. The informant has deposed in her evidence that she was assaulted by accused Dilip Singh
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1146 of 2017(6) dt.07-12-2023 5/5
whereas P.W.1 has stated that it was Varun Singh who had assaulted the informant by farsa . It is submitted that this cannot be said to be a minor discrepancy.
13 . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on going through the materials available on the record, this Court finds that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have perused the evidences which were brought on the record. Both the courts below have duly discussed the evidences, therefore, for brevity sake, this Court is not reiterating the same in its order. A perusal of the discussions made in the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the appellate court would show that both the courts have taken a view based on the evidences and this Court has no reason to say that the findings recorded by the two courts below are contrary to the materials on the record or otherwise perversed. This Court sitting in its revisional jurisdiction would not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts and the judgment of acquittal.
14 . This revision application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Rishi/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of acquittal by the trial court and appellate court should be set aside in revision.
Whether the contradictions and lack of medical evidence in the prosecution case warrant interference with the acquittal.
7 provisions across 2 enactments
Urmila Devi
Yugal Singh
Shivendra Kumar Singh
Dilip Singh
Shashi Bhushan Singh
Varun Singh
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
