(1.) This revision application has been filed to set aside the order dated 20-3-2002 passed by 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Smastipur in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1994,whereby opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 have been acquitted of all the charges leavelled against them.
(2.) Facts necessary for decision of the present case are that on the basis of the report given by the petitioner before the Officer-in-Charge of police station Vidyapati Nagar, district Smastipur, Vidyapati Nagar P.S. Case No. 93 of 1992 (GR No. 379 of 1992) was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 447, 427, 379 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. According to the prosecution when the accused persons were removing the hut same was objected to by the father of the petitioner at which one of the accused persons gave order to accused Suresh Rai to kill the father of the informant. Thereafter, according to the informant Suresh Rai gave Pharsa blow on the father of the informant as a result of which his father fell down. Prosecution has further alleged that accused Prahaladi Rai also hurled a Pharsa blow on the left hand of his father. According to the prosecution when informant and his brother-in-law came to rescue him they were also assaulted by sickle on their left hand and back and when his mother Urmila came to rescue them she was also assaulted by the accused Ganeshi Rai and Lukshaman Rai. Thereafter, the accused persons are alleged to have fled away with five bundles of mustard from the door of the informant.
(3.) After the case was committed to the Court of Session the learned Judge framed charge under Sections 148, 324, 326, 307, 447 and 504 against accused Suresh Rai and Maheswar Rai and charges under Sections 147, 447, 323 and 379 were framed against accused Ganeshi Rai and Luxman Rai. On the said date the learned Judge directed the office of issue summons to the informant and other witnesses, in the margin of the order dated 7-3-2001, it has been stated that the summons have been issued to the informant and the witnesses but there is nothing on record to suggest that in fact summons were ever served on the informant or other witnesses. From the order of the learned Judge dated 19-10-2001 it seems that he had directed the Public Prosecutor to produce the witnesses and for that purpose adjourned the case to 9-12-2001. On 6-12-2001 no witness was produced and the accused persons prayed for closing the prosecution evidence but the learned Judge gave opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to bring the witness for recording the evidence and for that purpose adjourned the case to 7-1-2002. On 7-1-2002 no witness was examined and the case was adjourned to 25-1-2002 with a direction to the Public Prosecutor to bring witnesses for evidence on the said date. Such an opportunity was given to the Public Prosecution again on 25-1-2002 and 18-2-2002. When the case was taken upon 15-3-2002 argument on the question of closing the prosecution evidence was heard but the learned judge adjourned the cases to 19-3-200 and gave test opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to bring the prosecution evidence. Ultimately, no witness was examined on 19-3-2002 and the learned Judge closed the prosecution evidence, heard the argument and posted the case for judgment on 20-3-2002 and acquitted the accused persons.