MANVENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.6.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 217(C) of 1998/Tr. No. 37 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barh. The appeal has been filed after obtaining leave to appeal on 4.8.2003 in S.L.A. No. 40 of 2002. The prosecution case is based upon the complaint petition dated 25.6.1998 filed by the appellant before the learned A.C.J.M., Barh with respect to an occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 24.6.1998 at 5 a.m. It has been contended in the complaint that plot nos. 1744, 1745 and 1746 containing an area of 23 decimal at Mauza-Sheonar, P.S.-Mokama, District- Patna were purchased in the name of the complainant's mother. There existed a garden over the said land. While, the complainant was at his house, he received information that 'Shisam' tree as well as Bamboo clumps are being damaged. Upon such information, when the complainant reached at the place of occurrence, he saw jackfruits being plucked and carried away in bags by the accused persons named in the complaint along with 8-10 unknown persons. It has further been alleged that the accused persons damaged several 'Sheesam' trees and bamboo clumps. On protest, accused Sidheshwar Thakur (since deceased) and Krishna Murari Kumar took out pistol and threatened the complainant to kill. The accused Sidheshwar Thakur (since deceased), thereafter, assaulted the complainant by butt of pistol which caused injury below his eye. Upon shouting, other villagers (witnesses) came and saw the accused persons committing the crime. The complainant has further alleged that the accused persons with common intention forming an unlawful assembly, committed theft and damaged the property of the complainant.

(2.) THE complainant alleges that he first went before the police to lodge a case but, the police asked him to lodge case in court. Accordingly, the complaint case was filed in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Barh, Patna. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on 26.6.1998. The learned Magistrate after holding inquiry, summoned the accused persons to face trial. On 30.9.1998, the charges were framed under Sections 379, 447, 147 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Since, one of the accused namely Sidheshwar Thakur died during pendency of the trial, the trial was dropped as against him on 27.8.1999. In course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, altogether five witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Ram Niwas Singh, P.W. 2 Rama Shankar Singh, P.W. 3 Ram Lakhan Singh, P.W. 4 Manvendra Prasad Singh and P.W. 5 Dr. Shailendra Kumar Verma, were examined. It is relevant to note that the appellant who has been examined as P.W. 4, is not only the complainant of the case but, has is also the sole injured in the case. P.W. 5, Dr. Shailendra Kumar Verma, had examined him and had issued injury report. He has proved the injury report which has been marked as Ext. 1 in course of trial. On behalf of the defence, no witness has been examined. However, the defence has brought on record the statement of complainant made on oath in Complaint Case No. 256 (C) /1996.

(3.) AS noted above, the doctor who examined the appellant, has been examined as P.W. 5 in the case. While, deposing in court, he has stated that he had examined the appellant on 24.6.1998 at the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Barh. He also admits that the injury report is dated 28.6.1998. If the appellant had got injury report on 25.6.1998 from the Barh Hospital before filing the complaint, as narrated in the complaint petition, the injury report dated 28.6.1998, as contained in Ext. 1, is certainly a forged and fabricated document and if the injury report dated 28.6.1998 is a bonafide document, the contention of the appellant in the complaint petition filed on 25.6.1998 to the extent that he had received the injury report after getting himself treated at Barh Hospital is a false statement. I further find that the injury report has been marked as exhibit with objection as the same is a carbon copy of the original. The prosecution has failed to explain as to why the original injury report has not been produced in the court. No register of the hospital showing any sort of treatment given to the complainant at Barh Sadar Hospital has been produced in course of trial. The trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have made contradictory statements to each other in material particulars.