RAJJU RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the order of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saran at Chapra in G.R. No. 2513/90 (Trial No. 33/2001) relieving the accused-opposite parties from the charges under Sections 341/323/305/379 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The First Information Report was lodged to the effect that on 18.9.1990 while the informant was going to the Hospital where his daughter was admitted r treatment having Rs. 600/- in his pocket for medicine, he was caught by accused persons and when the Petitioner opposed then in the meantime other accused persons came there with hi and iron rod and assaulted the Petitioner. Jhaurilal Rai took six hundred rupees and an H.M.T. watch from the Petitioner. On the basis of the information being lodged in Parsa P.S. Case No. 118/90 investigation was done. During the bourse of investigation, the injured was examined and then charge-sheet was submitted. In total 10 witnesses had been examined for and on behalf of the prosecution; out of them P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 land 4 had posed themselves to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. They happended to be relations of the informant and by elaborate discussions of all the eye witnesses, the learned court below came to the finding that they cannot be relied on rather they were not giving true picture of the occurrence. Regarding the injury report also the Radiologist who had done the X-ray had only been examined and as per the injury report given by the Doctor, by touching only he found the injury to fractured injury and as such grievous one. On elaborate discussions of each and very individual witness, the learned court blow has arrived at the decision that they cannot be relied on for the purpose of conviction and injury report has also been considered in its proper perspective and as such the acquittal has been recorded.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in total 10 witnesses have been examined for and on behalf of the prosecution and they had supported the occurrence in toto and in that way their evidence ought not to have been thrown out on the ground that the statement of the informant at the place of occurrence could not be established as nothing could be shown that he had gone to the hospital to see his ailing daughter. It is only one aspect of the judgment of the court below. Individual evidence of all the witnesses especially who are posing themselves to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence, the court below came to the finding that they could not be the eye witnesses and as such held to be non-believable moreso when they are partisan witnesses.