Patna High Court
Om Prakash Mandal vs The State Of Bihar on 11 February, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2162 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2010 Thana- FALKA District- Katihar
======================================================
Om Prakash Mandal S/O Kusumlal Mandal R/O Village- Gopalpatiti, P.S.-
Falka, District- Katihar
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Indrajeet Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-02-2025
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant; Sri
D.K. Sinha and the learned APP for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 14.5.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC-1,
Katihar in S.T. No. 215 of 2012 arising out of Falka P.S. Case No.
135 of 2010 by which the appellant has been held guilty for
committing offence under Sections 147, 323, 448, 427 and 436 of
the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for one year each for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2162 of 2019 dt.11-02-2025
2/7
offence under Sections 147, 323, 448, 427, of the Indian Penal
Code and RI for 10 years for offence under Section 436 of Indian
Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 5000/- has also been awarded for
offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and in default
of payment of fine, further four months imprisonment.
3. As per the prosecution case, one Musahru Muni
submitted a written statement before the S.H.O., Falka Police
Station alleging therein that on 26.07.2010 at about 9-10 AM
Kusum Lal Mandal and others including the appellant attacked on
his house by assaulting his wife, daughter, daughter-in-law and
children and ordered to vacate the house otherwise they will
commit loot and will set the house on fire. It is further alleged that
when the informant was going to the police station, co-accused
Husho Mandal and Rajesh Mandal intercepted him and in the
meanwhile, they started committing loot and took away many
household articles, cash of Rs. 2,000 from the shop of the nephew
of the informant and set the house on fire causing loss of Rupees
20,000 to the informant.
4. On the aforesaid written information, F.I.R. vide Falka
P.S. Case No. 135/2010 was instituted u/s 147, 148, 323, 448, 452,
379, 427 and 436 of I.P.C. against 20 persons including the
appellant and the police took up investigation and on completion
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2162 of 2019 dt.11-02-2025
3/7
of investigation first charge sheet was submitted vide charge sheet
no. 128/2010 and later on, supplementary charge sheet no.
146/2010 was submitted against 13 accused persons and after
cognizance and procedural compliance the case was committed to
the Court of Sessions for trial. Charges were framed for offence
u/s 147, 148, 323, 448, 427 and 436/34 of I.P.C. which the
appellant denied and pleaded not guilty.
6. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses namely Babli
Devi (PW-1), Kavita Devi (PW-2), Chanda Devi (PW-3), Gunjan
Devi (PW-4), Chandra Shekhar Singh (I.O. & PW-5), Shri Pat
Singh (PW-6 & I.O.), Dr. Ram Narayan (PW-7) and Musahru
Muni (PW-8 & Informant) and apart from oral evidence,
documentary evidence also brought on record.
7. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel
for the appellant that on behalf of the defence also, some
documentary evidence were brought on record to prove their title
and possession over the land in question dispute regarding which
the alleged occurrence have taken place. He further submitted that
the Trial Court failed to consider the documentary evidence
produced by the defence as Ext. A, B, C, D and E with regard to
land in question from which it is proved that the land in question is
in possession of the landlord i.e., defence side so question of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2162 of 2019 dt.11-02-2025
4/7
dispossession of the informant by committing alleged occurrence
does not arise. Out of 8 prosecution witnesses, PW 1, PW 2, PW 3,
PW 4 and PW 8 are party witnesses and their deposition cannot be
believed as gospel truth if it is not supported by independent
witnesses and in this case no independent witness of the village
had supported the prosecution witness.
8. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for
the appellant that for the same occurrence Falka P.S. Case
No.136/2010 was instituted by the defence side u/s 323, 324,
436/34 of I.P.C. He further submitted that the investigation was not
done properly as is evident from the deposition of PW-6 who did
not record the restatement of informant. There is a bona-fide land
dispute between the parties, so there is every chance of false
implication.
9. The learned APP for the State has supported the
impugned judgment but he has not been able to defend the case of
the prosecution and the fact that almost all the witnesses have said
that they had not seen as to who set fire to the hut.
10. I have considered the submissions of the parties and
have gone through the materials available on record.
11. P.W-1 is one Babli Devi who has supported the
prosecution case and in her deposition she has said that it is the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2162 of 2019 dt.11-02-2025
5/7
appellant who had set fire to the hut but in her cross-examination
she has said that after regaining consciousness she came to know
that her hut burnt.
12. Similar is the deposition of PW-2 (Kabita Devi). She
in her deposition has said that she was inside the hut and when she
came out of the hut, she saw that the fire is in the backside of the
hut.
13. PW-3 (Chanda Devi) in her deposition has said that
after she regained consciousness, she saw that her hut was burnt.
14. PW-4 (Gunjan Devi) in her deposition has said that
the appellant had set fire to the hut but in her cross-examination,
she says that when she came out of her hut, she saw that her hut
was on fire.
15. PW-5 (Chandra Sekhar Singh) and PW-6 (Shri Pat
Singh) are the Investigating Officers of the case.
16. PW-7 (Dr. Ram Narayan Jha) is the doctor.
17. PW-8 (Mushahru Muni) is the informant of the case.
In the FIR he has said that it was Sanjay Mandal who set fire to the
hut but in Court, he has said that it was the appellant who had set
fire to the hut.
18. From the discussions made above, it appears that
PW-1 to PW-4 have not seen the occurrence. They came out of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2162 of 2019 dt.11-02-2025
6/7
hut after the fire had already started. They did not see as to who
had set fire to the hut and they in the hospital have come to know
that their hut was burnt. Though they were assaulted by the
accused persons but the allegation of setting fire is made against
the appellant by all the witnesses. The informant similarly has to
be disbelieved as he has given a different version in the FIR but in
the Court he has changed the same.
19. In these circumstances the accusation against the
appellant cannot be proved by the witnesses who are not
eyewitnesses and the prosecution has not been able to prove the
allegations levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubts.
20. In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed and
appellant is acquitted of all charges levelled against him.
21. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated
14.5.2019
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC-1, Katihar
in S.T. No. 215 of 2012 arising out of Falka P.S. Case No. 135 of
2010 is hereby set side.
22. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from
the liabilities of the bail bonds.
23. Let the LCR be sent back to the concerned Court
below forthwith.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2162 of 2019 dt.11-02-2025
24. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stand
disposed off accordingly.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 07.03.2025
Transmission Date 07.03.2025
