BABLU KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pivotal issues, quite disturbing and disquieting, that emanate in this appeal by special leave for scrutiny, deliberation and apposite delineation, fundamentally pertain to the role of the prosecution and the duty of the court within the requisite paradigm of fair trial which in the ultimate conceptual eventuality results in appropriate stability of criminal justice dispensation system. The attitude of callousness and non-chalance portrayed by the prosecution and the total indifferent disposition exhibited by the learned trial Judge in shutting out the evidence and closing the trial after examining a singular formal witness, PW 1, in a trial where the accused persons were facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which entailed an acquittal under Section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), are really disconcerting; and indubitably cause discomfort to the judicial conscience. It seems that everyone concerned with the trial has treated it as a farce where the principal protagonists compete with each other for gaining supremacy in the race of closing the case unceremoniously, burying the basic tenets of fair trial, and abandoning one's duty to serve the cause of justice devoutly. It is a case where the prosecution has played truant and the learned trial Judge, with apathy, has exhibited impatience. Fortunately, the damage done by the trial court has been rectified by the High Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC; but what is redemption for the conception of the fair trial has caused dissatisfaction to the accused persons, for they do not intend to face the retrial.

(2.) The sad scenario has to have a narration. The informant lodged an FIR on 29.11.2004 at Tikari Police Station about 8.00 p.m. that the accused persons came armed with various weapons, took away her husband Brahamdeo Yadav, the deceased, and threatened the family members not to come out from their house. The deceased was taken towards the house of Krishna Yadav and next morning he was found dead having several wounds. It was mentioned in the FIR that the occurrence had taken place as the family of the informant and the accused persons were in litigating terms. On the basis of the FIR, criminal law was set in motion and eventually, the investigating agency submitted the charge-sheet for the offences which we have already mentioned hereinbefore. After the accused persons were sent up for trial, charges were framed on 10.8.2007.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the informant preferred criminal revision no. 919 of 2008. The learned Single Judge upon perusal of the record found that there was no service report/execution of warrant of arrest against the informant and there was also no service report on record to show that either summons were served on other witnesses or bailable or non-bailable warrants issued against the witnesses were executed. The High Court also took note of the fact that after the accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC, case was adjourned to 17.5.2008 for evidence of the defence and hearing and finally the matter was taken up for consideration under Section 232 CrPC and judgment was passed acquitting the accused persons. It has been clearly stated by the High Court that the Superintendent of Police, Gaya had not taken steps to produce the evidence and the learned trial Judge had not taken effective steps for production of witnesses and tried to conclude the trial without being alive to the duties of the trial court. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Another v. State of Gujarat and others, 2004 4 SCC 158 and opined there has been no fair trial and accordingly remanded the matter for retrial by the trial court.