STATE OF BIHAR Vs. ANIL KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.6.1989 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Session Trial No. 43 of 1986 / 165 of 1984 by which all the five accused persons were acquitted from the charge under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, namely, Yamini Ranjan Mishra, Jagdeo Singh, Sukhdeo Kurmi and Dudheshwar Singh died and so by two orders this Court had ordered for abating the appeal against them. Now only accused Anil Kumar Mishra remained as respondent.

(2.) It appears that in course of dacoity in an ornaments' shop a person was shot dead and this respondent and others were named as culprits. After investigation chargesheet was submitted and accordingly cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was explained to them to which they pleaded their innocence so the trial proceeded.

(3.) Before the Trial Court the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses but the Trial Court found a number of grave lacunae in the prosecution version as well as in the evidence. The Trial Court has noted that most of the versions have been developed at the stage of trial as the factum of protest petition filed by the informant was later on denied by the informant himself. The protest petition gave altogether a different version, so it was denied by the informant. The Trial Court while discussing the evidence came to the opinion that the defence version of occurrence had substance. The defence version was that the informant was dealing in purchase of stolen ornaments and at the time of occurrence the informant's son was negotiating with thieves for purchasing the stolen ornaments and some dispute crept up in that dealing and due to that dispute between the thieves and the informant, the firing was taken place which led to death of the deceased Anil Kumar. The Trial Court has also found a number of other absurdities and so the case was not found to be true beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Not even one independent witness was examined though the prosecution case was that the place of occurrence was situated in the midst of the market and there is no explanation that as to why not even one independent witness was examined. The source of light has also not been established beyond doubt. The source of light claims to be the lantern but that was neither seized nor produced, therefore, source of identification remains clouded.