ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge. Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No. 111/ 88/16/99, whereby all the accused persons of the case, who are opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 of this revision, were acquitted.

(2.) The accused persons (opposite parties) had faced trial in the lower Court on the allegation of the informant that on 5.5.1986. he was abducted by the accused persons. Rs. 5,000/-and certain golden ornaments in his possession including wrist watch were snatched. He was also administered some obnoxious substance in the form of soft drink. So, the accused opposite parties were tried for the offences under Sections 342/34, 365/34 and 328/34, IPC. The alleged case originated on the fardbeyan of the informant Arun Kumar, that on 5.5.1986 he had come to his home town Samastipur on leave from Gorakhpur where he was posted in the Railway department. He went to the United Bank of India for depositing Rs. 5,000/-. but on the way he was met by three persons, namely, Ashok Yadav, Shibshankar Yadav and Umesh Yadav. When he was returning from the Bank and when he was taking lassi at a particular stall these three persons asked him to go to view a film in the Bhola Talkies. All the four entered the cinema hall, but in the interval the accused persons brought four bottles of cold drinks and one bottle was given to the informant, Arun Kumar. The accused persons also consumed the cold drinks. After half an hour Arun Kumar started feeling giddiness and. so. on this complaint all the three persons and the informant came out of the cinema hall. The accused persons made him seat in a matador maxi and sped away. On the way, the informant asked as to where he was being carried and then the accused persons replied that he was being taken to his home. On reaching N.H. 31, the informant on the pretext of having water came out of the window of the maxi and started running away. But he was chased arid overpowered by three accused persons who were accompanied by other persons also in the car including the brother-in-law of Ashok. He was brought back to the maxi and at the point of lethal weapons and fire arms, he was carried to unknown place, then to a house in which he was confined. When he regained some senses, he was given cold water and light was flashed on his face. Then he again fell unconscious. He regained his consciousness in the DMCH, Darbhanga, where he gave his fardbeyan.

(3.) The trial Court on the basis of several witnesses examined in court found the story of a row between the informant's father for supply of certain articles including motor cycle etc. to be probable. Baraties had returned and the informant stayed at his sasural and subsequently when he returned, a false case has been filed. It was submitted before me that findings of the trial Court are vitiated and are visited with impropriety because instead of relying on the prosecution evidence, the trial Court relied more on the defence case. In this connection, of course, if the trial Court failed to discuss the evidence of witnesses and analyse it in order to come to a particular conclusion, the judgment could suffer from illegality and impropriety. The evidence of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved simply in the light of the defence evidence, but if the defence evidence has been considered regarding probability of false implication after the court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case by the evidence on record, the judgment of the trial Court shall not suffer from any illegality. I find that the trial Court did discuss the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and held that they were not reliable and then in the light of the defence case, the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Of course, the judgment of the trial Court would have been a bit more elaborate, exhaustive and explicit. But unless the judgment suffers from any perverted or wrong decision on account of the aforesaid lacuna. I do not think that this court will justifiably interfere because this would set an unhealthy precedent and trend, in so far as if the case is remanded to the lower Court, that would put unnecessary hardship upon the accused and keep them on tenterhooks on account of the further litigation, which may or may not end soon. So, it would be unwise for this Court to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court in revision unless the judgment is vitiated by illegality or perversity on the facts on record. Therefore, now I shall advert to the question whether the decisions and the findings of the trial Court on the basis of evidence is perverted or vitiated by an mis-application of legal principles.