SHANKAR SONAR @ SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th January, 2000 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Cr. Appeal No. 156 of 1998, confirming the judgment of the trial Court rendered by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Jamui in G.R. No. 1063 of 1994. Tr. No. 512 of 1998. The revisionists were convicted under Section 341, IPC and they were directed to enter into a bond of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) each to be of good behaviour and to maintain peace for one year.

(2.) It has been submitted by the revisionists lawyer that the informant who was the only witness mentioned in the charge-sheet, was examined and the other witnesses, named in the charge-sheet were not examined. The witnesses mentioned in the protest report submitted by the informant, were examined and they all happened to be hear-say witnesses. Land dispute between the parties was admitted. So it was a case of doubtful nature and the petitioners deserve benefit of despatch. Besides the same, there appears to be some kind of manipulation in the FIR because the date of discharge from the P.S. is mentioned as 26th November. 1994 whereas the Chief Judicial Magistrate has already seen it on 2nd November, 1994. The written report of the informant was also seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 2nd November, 1994.

(3.) It was a case in which the informant was confined in a room of the house in which he was living at the point of fire-arm and he was asked not to raise alarm, otherwise he would be shot dead at 11.00 in the night. Next morning, he was pushed out of the house by the accused persons and the house hold articles were also taken away. In such a circumstance, the informant would be the only eye witness of the alleged occurrence in the night. The plea for non-examination of charge-sheeted witness was that the witnesses were gained over. Whatever may be the case, if the informant's witnesses were reliable and both the courts have relied on their evidence and gave a concurrent finding that the accused-revisionists committed the offence, there is no scope for this Court for revising the finding of fact. So far doubt in FIR is concerned, I find that the written report was signed by the informant on 25th October, 1994 and it was presented before the P.S. on the same day at 9.15 a.m. So there was no delay on the part of the informant to lodge the case at the P.S. Of course some delay was there on the part of Police in sending the written report to the Court which was on 2.11.1994. Already there was a protest by the informant against the conduct of the I.O. So laches on the part of Police was laches of theirs and the informant's case cannot suffer on account of the laches. So far mentioning of date as 26th November, 1994 as the date of despatch in the FIR is concerned, it is a mistake otherwise it does not appear how the Chief Judicial Magistrate had seen the FIR on 2nd November, 1994. The circumstances, therefore, do not point to any illegality committed by the trial Court in coming to the findings of fact. So far sentence is concerned, I do not think there is any good case before this Court calling for any interference.