KAMESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The informant- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2002 passed by the learned Fast Track Court No. 1, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 1990/99 of 2001 by which the accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/149/379/326/148 I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.3.1989 at about 11 a.m. the informant Kameshwar Singh was going on his bicycle with his daughter Pinki Kumari aged about 11 years who was a pillion rider to purchase Rang Abir when he reached near the Darwaza of Rajendra Sah, he found the accused persons sitting at Darwaza of Rajendra Sah one of the accused Biju Sah saw the informant and told that he is also Rajput and instigated others to assault him. Thereafter, accused Mahendra Sah inflicted farsa blow from backside the informant fell down from the bicycle. Farsa blow caused injury on his back above waist of the informant. Rajendra Sah assaulted the informant by sword. Suresh Sah inflicted one blow of farsa on right leg of informant. After getting the assault by the accused persons the informant became senseless. It is further alleged that accused persons took away his Janta Watch and cash Rs.421 and the bicycle. Pinki Kumari aged about 11 years also saw the occurrence. The statement of informant was recorded by the police in the clinic of Dr. Alimuddin. Thereafter, on the basis of fard beyan Vidhyapati Nagar P. S. Case No. 14 of 1989 dated 23.3.1989 was instituted against six accused persons. After investigation charge- sheet was submitted against them. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session. Charges were framed against them. After trial they were acquitted vide the impugned judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of sufficient material the learned trial court has acquitted the accused which is not in accordance with law. The finding is perverse and this case requires interference by this Court.