Sanjeev Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 3131 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                           CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.2 of 2021
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2012 Thana- JAMOBAZAR District- Siwan
     ======================================================

SANJEEV KUMAR S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Resident of Village-Bahadurpur, P.O.-Bahadurpur, P.S.-Barharia, District-Siwan.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Jahoor Mian S/o Late Md. Suleman Mian Resident of Village-Bahadurpur, P.S.-Jamo Bazar, District-Siwan.

3. Mah Alam S/o Late Mohammad Saqoor Mian Resident of Village-

Bahadurpur, P.S.-Jamo Bazar, District-Siwan.

4. Munna Mian S/o Jahoor Mian Resident of Village-Bahadurpur, P.S.-Jamo Bazar, District-Siwan.

5. Tunna Mian S/o Jahoor Mian Resident of Village-Bahadurpur, P.S.-Jamo Bazar, District-Siwan.

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

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kanishak Kaustubh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH)

Date : 19-07-2023

This appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure has been filed putting to challenge an order

dated 10.12.2019, passed by the learned Additional District &

Sessions Judge-IV, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No. 72 of 2014, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.2 of 2021 dt.19-07-2023

whereby the learned trial court has recorded acquittal of the

respondents No. 2- 4 on the ground that no witness turned up at the

trial to support the charge, except PW-1, who did not present

himself for cross examination. The occurrence is said to be of

30.12.2012 in relation to which, based on the fardbeyan of the

Ganesh Prasad (since deceased), Jamobazar P.S. Case No 144 of

2012 came to be registered. He alleged in his fardbeyan that a

criminal case, i.e., Jamobazar P.S. Case No. 46 of 2009 was earlier

registered and the respondent No. 2, Jahoor Mian wanted the

informant Ganesh Prasad to change his testimony recorded in

connection with the said Jamobazar P.S. case No. 46 of 2009. The

informant said to have told Jahoor Mian (respondent No. 2) and

his accomplishes that such matters could be discussed at his house.

He alleged in the fardbeyan that subsequently the respondents

came to the house of the informant and assaulted him variously.

Jahoor Mian is said to have exhorted others whereafter Munna

Mian (respondent No. 4) opened fire. It is evident from the cause

title of the present memo of appeal that Jahoor Mian and his two

sons Munna Mian and Tunna Mian were implicated in the criminal

case. Allegedly Mah Alam assaulted the informant with farsa and

Bhola Mian poured acid upon the informant's son. Chargesheet

was submitted in 2013 by the police for the offences punishable Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.2 of 2021 dt.19-07-2023

under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 506 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against

respondent No. 2-5. Cognizance was subsequently taken by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan on 03.09.2013 and the

case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 02.01.2014. On

17.12.2014 the charges were framed against the respondent Nos.

2-5 for commission of the offences punishable under Section 323,

324, 307, 506 r.w.s 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of

the Arms Act. There were altogether 9 chargesheet witnesses. It is

stated in the memo of the appeal itself that the informant died

during the course of trial which had begun with the framing of

charge on 17.12.2014.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

has submitted that no notice was issued by the trial court for

examination of the official witnesses and there is no service report

as to whether the notices were served upon the official witnesses

or not.

3. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that

the trial remained pending before the trial court since 2014. No

witness except PW-1, the son of the informant appeared before the

trial court to depose for the prosecution and he subsequently did

not present himself for cross examination.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.2 of 2021 dt.19-07-2023

4. In such view of the matter, we do not find any legal

infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court recording

acquittal of the respondents in the absence of any evidence. It is

pertinent to take note of the fact that the incident is related to the

year 2012. The trial had begun in the year 2014. In the absence of

any prosecution witness, the trial court recorded the finding of

acquittal on 10.12.2019. The appellant filed the present appeal

against acquittal on 23.01.2021. It is a different matter that this

Court, by an order dated 12.07.2023 has condoned the delay in

filing of the appeal.

5. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case as

noted above, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with

the impugned judgment of acquittal.

6. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

( Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

Nishant/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          24.07.2023
Transmission Date       24.07.2023