STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BHUPENDRA PRASAD RAI S/O GAURI SHANKAR RAI, R/O VILL. MUKUNDPUR, P.S. PATORY, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Parties. These cases are filed against the Judgment of acquittal dated 01.09.2004 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum -Fast Track Court No. 4, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1996/106 of 2002.

(2.) PROSECUTION case initiated on fardbeyan of one Ram Swarath Rai, P.W. 9 injured of the case, in brief, is that on 08.04.1992 at about 09.45 pm. informant was sitting at his door in verandah after taking meal on a bench. In the meantime, this accused -respondent Bhupendra Prasad Rai along with two unknown persons was seen coming which was unnatural. Before any reaction, it is alleged that the accused -respondent hurled a bomb which hit on the wall and its splinters caused injuries on chest and other parts of the informant' body. Informant exhorted to bring gun, went to first floor of his house and was coming from first floor when second bomb was also hurled. Informant became unconscious after watching blood and regained his consciousness in M.L.A. ward of P.M.C.H. and gave his fardbeyan. After concluding the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded acquittal of the accused -respondent. In all 13 witnesses are examined in the case and they are P.W. 1 Arbind Kumar Yadav, P.W. 2 Pramod Kumar Singh, P.W. 3 Sahdeo Rai, P.W. 4 Shashi Bhushan Kumar, P.W. 5 Umesh Rai, P.W. 6 Shyam Sunder Prasad, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar, P.W. 8 Mohan Thakur, P.W. 9 Ram Swarath Rai, informant of the case, P.W. 10 Dr. Bhola Prasad Sinha, P.W. 11 Dr. Bimal Mukesh P.W. 12 Satish Chandra Mishra and P.W. 13 Turant Lal Sahni.

(3.) Of rest witnesses, P.W. 3 is on the point that he heard the sound of bomb blast saw three persons fleeing from the door of the informant and identified this accused -respondent. P.Ws. 4 and 7 are nephews of the informant and P.W. 6 is his son. All these three witnesses were present when bomb was hurled. It is prosecution case that first bomb blast only caused injuries on person of the informant but all these three witnesses did not see as who threw that bomb. Second bomb was thrown by unknown persons according to their statement. Presence of this accused -appellant is stated by these witnesses only. P.W. 8 is a witness who is not claiming to watch the incident, rather gathered information about the incident. P.W. 9 is the only witness to state that bomb which caused injuries to him was hurled by this accused -respondent but has not been believed on the ground that enmity was prevailing in between the parties and F.I.R. was lodged only after four days. Enmity in itself may not be made ground for acquittal similarly delay in lodging the F.I.R. also cannot be made sole basis for acquittal but the circumstance of the case is that the time of the incident was night and enmity was there in between the parties. In that circumstance, statement was recorded after four days. Explanation is given that informant was unconscious which was not the reality. P.W. 11 who examined the informant found him conscious from his admitting to P.M.C.H. On the other count, I.O. lodged a sanha after receiving information of taking place of incident, met the injured, his son and two nephews. According to him, informant was unconscious but informant's son and nephews, P.Ws. 6, 4 and 7, were conscious quite aware of the fact but did not disclose the person who really hurled the bomb or present at the place of occurrence.