JAHANA KHATOON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER /informant has challenged the judgment dated 18.09.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge -III, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.134 of 2009 acquitting the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 7.

(2.) JAHANA Khatoon(P.W.8) gave her fardbeyan on 13.09.2008 at about 7.30 A.M. disclosing therein that on previous day at about 5 P.M. her daughter Rozi Parveen along with her cousin sister Sarwari aged about 11 years and Phua Farzim Khatoon aged about 12 years had gone to Ratanpura for purchasing fruits for the purpose of Aftari and all the girls returned back after purchasing the same. During course of cutting of fruits one apple was found rotten and on account thereof, she enquired from her daughter why she has purchased rotten fruits. Rozi Parveen said just she is coming after exchanging the fruit and then, she proceeded alone to Ratanpura. Then thereafter she did not return. They have made hectic search up to 11 P.M. but could not traced her. Again at the morning she along with her family members gone in search of Rozi Parveen and when they reached in the mango orchard of Kalu Khan, at western flank near railway bridge they have found Salwar of Rozi Parveen. Then thereafter so many persons assembled there who managed to get the dead body out from the ditch. She identified the dead body of her daughter. Blood was oozing out from her nose and there was black spot at so many places over chest. Lip was swollen. Vagina was swollen and for that she had opined that after ravishing her the accused persons night have committed murder to screen themselves. During course of enquiry from Sarwari as well as Farzim Khatoon at the previous night they have disclosed that Safi Alam along with his son Gulab was present at their flour mill. Five persons were standing near more ahead of flour mill whom they have claimed identification. She had further disclosed that few days back the people of Thalwara had threatened. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Ashok Paper Mill P.S.Case No.86 of 2008 was registered against unknown and investigation was taken up. After submission of chargesheet against the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 7, the trial commenced and concluded by the judgment impugned which happens to be the subject matter of instant revision.

(3.) AT the other hand, the learned Additional P.P. submitted that during course of exercising revisional jurisdiction reappraisal of evidence is not at all permissible unless and until there happens to be glaring defect persisting on the record during course of appraisal of evidence.