SATISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against the judgment passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda, in Sessions Trial No. 170/90, whereby the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 of this revision were acquitted.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the revisionist 'slawyer that the trial court failed to consider the evidence of each and every witness in detail and it passed an order of acquittal on the ground that the Investigating Officer was not examined. The trial court also failed to consider in its proper prospective the evidence of witnesses which had the effect of proving the case of the informant. On this ground, it has been submitted that the judgment of the trial court suffers from illegality and irregularity and, hence, the impugned judgment has been prayed to be revised.

(3.) IN the instant case, I find that on the allegation that the accused persons had blocked the irrigational channel of the informant and then there was protest and subsequently there was an assault upon the informant and his father, the case was filed. The prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses including the Doctor. The I.O. was not examined. The trial court after discussing the evidence of each and every witness came to the conclusion that the witnesses were discrepant on vital points and they had made certain statements improving upon the case and upon their statements before the I.O. This contradiction and discrepancy could not be elicited because the I. O. was not examined. The trial court finally disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses also in view of the doctor 'sevidence and came to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the trial court recorded an order of acquittal. I am of the opinion that this Court cannot interfere with the judgment of the trial court simply because a different view other than the trial court 'sview can be taken upon the evidence on record. Even in an appeal against a judgment of acquittal the court of appeal shall interfere only in case of perversion in the judgment. The jurisdiction of the revisional court is further limited as I have stated in the initial paragraphs. It has also been seen that neither there has been any attempt by the trial court to shut out a piece of evidence which the prosecution wanted to adduce nor there has been any error of record committed by the trial court so far the evidence is concerned. The appreciation of the evidence done by the trial court is also not visited by any legal flaw. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no good case before this Court for revising the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.