STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SIPAHI PASWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Respondents. This Government Appeal is preferred on behalf of the State of Bihar against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 07.12.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Railway Sonepur in Muzaffarpur R.P.F. Case No. 15 of 1985/Trial No. 50 of 2006. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.10.1985 at about 15.30 O'clock 15 yards in North of main road near boundary wall of Battler Company drums on Tempo with accused persons were seen. For drums, it is said that the same were brought there from Signal Store of Railway. Drums were containing diesel, bleaching powder and mobil, quantity detailed in recovery memo. There is detail of drivers of tempo as Sipahi Paswan, Bishwanath Sah and Motilal Sah. Another man sitting on tempo disclosed him as Ram Chandra. Information was gathered by In-charge Inspector, Anant Saran Srivastava under whose leadership raiding party seized above articles. Seized articles were recovered with the help of J.P. Sinha, Signal Inspector, Gajadhar Rai, Jamadar Mahto, Jhagru and Ramchandra, Signal Khalasi. Trial commenced and ended in acquittal of all the accused persons who were facing trail in the case, validity of which has been questioned through filing this appeal on behalf of the State. Diesel, mobil and bleaching powder are seized in drums showing railway property. Trial Court has doubted that seized articles (properties) are railway properties. No doubt, witnesses are there to state that drums were taken to road in side the wall of Battler Company. Drums bore no mark of railway. If there would have been appearing such marks, another question which could involve that is non-availability of such drums in market but that is not the circumstance of the case. Another circumstance which could lead to the conclusion of being the articles (properties) of Railway would have been taken away of drums from the signal store (railway premises), that also is lacking in this case. Witnesses no doubt are stating about watching some of the accused persons with drums containing diesel, mobil and bleaching powder but it is lacking that really same was taken out from the signal store or premises of the railway. Thus, I find no mistake committed by the trial Court in doubting possession of railway property by the accused persons, including respondents. Accordingly, this Government Appeal is dismissed.