SITA RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against concurrent finding of the trial court and also the appellate court by which the finding recorded by court below, sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was confirmed in appeal. When this revision was admitted, at the instance of the petitioner informant was permitted to be added as opposite party no. 2. Requisites were filed by the petitioner for service of notice on opposite party no. 2 but since notice sought to be served on opposite party no. 2 was returned unserved petitioner was directed to take steps for fresh service of notice on opposite party no. 2 failing which the petition was to stand rejected against the concerned opposite party without further reference to a Bench. The record bears facts that since direction of the court was not followed in submitting requisite, this revision stood rejected against opposite party no. 2. Even on the last date when the matter came for hearing, no one appeared either on behalf of the petitioner or opposite party no. 2. The record has been perused and findings are recorded as below :

(2.) THE factual matrix are that the prosecution was launched on behest of Raju Prasad (P.W. 6) with accusation that on 14th December, 1991, the petitioner visited his house and persuaded him to pay Rs. 25,000/ - as expenses for sending him to Saudi Arabia. As prospect of earning in Saudi Arabia was bright, Raju Prasad (P.W. 6), it is alleged, taking petitioner 'splea to be true, secured money from his brother - in -law and gave advance of Rs. 25,000/ - to him on commitment to make payment of rest of the amount to him later on. It is alleged that the petitioner duped Ashok Kumar, Dharm Nath, Rajesh Kumar, Jogendra Kunwar, Prabhu Nath Singh, Vishwa Mohan Singh and Khalifa Lal Srivastava also from whom secured handsome amount on fake assurance, and eventually became traceless. Though search for petitioner was made at Bombay, where he was reported to have gone, but he was not traceable. After said Raju Prasad (P.W. 6) set the ball in motion, investigation commenced and the police laid chargesheet against the petitioner.

(3.) ON perusal of the record I notice certain features of the prosecution case which cannot remain unnoticed, on factum of payment of money by different persons to the petitioner. Though Ashok Kumar Bani, P.W. 3, and Khalifa Srivastava, P.W. 4 stated to have paid money to the petitioner at the shop of Chandrika Prasad in presence of Laxman Prasad, P.W. 1, the said Laxman Prasad belying assertions made by them, states to have learnt about payment of money by Ashok Kumar Bani, Khalifa Srivastava and others, to the petitioner. While other witnesses were stating about payment of money to the petitioner on 14th December, 1991, Ashok Kumar Bani states about payment of money to the petitioner on 13th December, 1991, a day preceding 14th December, 1991. when payment of money was shown to have been made to the petitioner. If Ashok Kumar Bani, P.W. 3, was considered to be credible, the payment of money was made to the petitioner in presence of Laxman Prasad, P.W. 1 and Raju Prasad P.W. 6. Though Khalifa Srivastava, P.W. 4 states about payment of money to the petitioner by Dharmnath and Raju Prasad in his presence and also in presence of Laxman Prasad, he excluded presence of Chandrika Prasad at the time of payment of money to the petitioner. Contrary to assertion of P.W. 6, about payment of Rs. 10,000/ - by Raju Prasad, Tarkeshwar Prasad P.W. 5, who claims to be his cousin brother, invented a different story about payment of money by him on behalf of Raju Prasad P.W. 6, and as for presence of person before whom payment of money was made to the petitioner, witness states that besides a number of customers who were at the shop, payment of money was made in presence of Ashok Kumar Bani P.W. 3, Khalifa Prasad P.W. 4 and also Laxman Prasad P.W. 1. If Raju Prasad P.W. 6 was to be considered credible, payment of money was made by him was made only in presence of Laxman Prasad, P.W. 1.