Ramjee Sah vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4177 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CRIMINAL REVISION No.1101 of 2017
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-1995 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
                                     District- East Champaran
     ======================================================

Ramjee Sah Son of Late Harihar Sah, Resident of Village- Phulwariya, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Manjur Sah @ Manzoor Sah, Son of Late Ainul Sah,

3. Jalim Akhtar @ Zameel Akhtar, Son of Md. Suleman Sah,

4. Mirtunjay Sah @ Murtuza Sah, Son of Manzoor Sah, O.Ps No.2 to 4 are resident of Village- Phulwariya, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr.Abhay Kumar
     For the Respondent/s   :       Mr.Dr. Ajeet Kumar

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

JUDGMENT AND ORDER ORAL

Date : 31-08-2023

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by judgment and order,

dated 31.05.2017, passed, by learned 13th Additional Sessions

Judge, East Champaran, at Motihari, in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of

2012, whereby he has affirmed the judgment and order of acquittal

recorded in the judgment and order, dated 27.06.2012, passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sikrahana, Motihari, in Trial

No. 1287 of 2012, arising out of Complaint Case No. 93 of 1995.

3. From perusal of the materials available on record, it is

evident that the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 have been charged for Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1101 of 2017 dt.31-08-2023

the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 379 and 504 of

the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Sikrahana, Motihari, in Trial No. 1287 of 2012, has recorded

acquittal from the charge levelled against Opposite Party Nos. 2 to

4 giving them the benefit of doubt due to the contrary evidence of

the prosecution witnesses. The said judgment and order has been

affirmed by learned 13th Additional Sessions Judge, East

Champaran, at Motihari, in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2012.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that there being no contradiction in the evidence of the

witnesses, and the District Courts ought not to have allowed the

Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 to be acquitted of the charges levelled

against them on the ground, apart from others, that the District

Courts have not considered the evidence of the private doctor (PW

6).

5. The considerations are entirely different while

entertaining a petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against orders of acquittal

and conviction. The judgment and order recording acquittal of a

person can be interfered with only when it can be shown that on

the basis of materials on record, no other view, except conviction

of the person charged, would have been possible. The petitioner Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1101 of 2017 dt.31-08-2023

has failed to show any cogent materials to interfere with the

judgments and orders impugned.

6. It is settled law that in revision against acquittal, the

Court's interference would be required only if the findings are

perverse. The revisional Court is not required to re-appreciate the

evidence and if two views are possible on the basis of evidence,

the view which is favourable to an accused should be accepted.

7. The presumption of innocence of an accused is the

general principle of criminal jurisprudence. The presumption

stands strengthened with the acquittal being recorded by the

learned Trial Court. In the present case, there is concurrent finding

of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court and the learned

Appellate Court, holding Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 not to be

guilty of the offences for which they were put on trial.

8. Accordingly, I do not find any compelling

circumstance to interfere with the judgments and orders impugned.

9. This revision application is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/-

AFR/NAFR                         NAFR
CAV DATE                          N/A
Uploading Date                06-09-2023
Transmission Date             06-09-2023