JAGDISH PANDEY Vs. PRAYAG MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Jagdish Pandey made accusation at Police Station Baghaila (Nokha) in the District of Rohtas against the members of the opposite party that they, in a mob assaulted the petitioner and his other relations and even looted away their guns. The story is that his brother Surendm Pandey when went to his field for irrigation, he noticed that accused opposite party Nos. 1 to 7 had out the ridge of the field for flow of water. Surendra Pandey objected to it, whereupon opposite party No.7 hit him with a Barchcha and opposite party No. 4 assaulted him with latbi. Surendra Pandey ran to his house. All the members of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 7 started chasing him. Other members of the opposite party Nos. 8 to 10 also joined in the chase. Surendra Pandey, who could reach his Dalan earlier, told his father, uncle and also his grand father that a mob was following him for assault. Further case of the prosecution is that on bearing from Surendra Pandey, his other relations got ready for an encounter. Surendra Pandey took out a gun and so did his brother Jagdish Pandey. Other got lathi in their hands. The mob by the time came to the Dalan and there was a clash. They all began assaulting Jagdish Pandey, Surendra Pandey and others. It is also their case that accused opposite party No. 10 Nagina Dusadh snatched away the gun, which Jagdish Pandey, was holding and some other members of the mob snatched the gun of Surendra Pandey. Some members of the mob also received injuries in the counter attack. Thereafter all of them retreated. Jagdish Pandey had several injuries and he was removed to Rajput outpost under police station Baghaila, where he gave his fardbeyan on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was drawn up and the police registered a case. After investigation, there was a charge-sheet against these petitioners and they were committed to the Court of Session for trial on charges under Sections 307, 147, 148 and also 397 and 42 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the CodeT). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, before whom the case proceeded, by his judgment, dated 11th March, 1981 acquitted all the accused opposite party against which, the informant Jagdish Pandey, being aggrieved, has filed this application in revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the judgment impugned.

(2.) The learned Advocate Sri K. N. Choubey has argued that the trial court failed to make a proper assessment of the evidence. It has been contended that the court committed error in discarding the statements of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 who are grand father, father uncle and son on the sole ground of their being interested in the prosecution case. The court below should have taken into consideration that they had received injuries in the occurrence and so, the fact of their being present at the occurrence should not have been disbelieved. It has also been argued that the prosecution has successfully proved that two guns belonging to the informant and P.W. 4 Surendra Pandey were snatched away and it was the duty of the court to have framed charges under the Arms Act against the members of the opposite party, at least against the snatchers of the guns, for being in possession of the guns without licence. It has also been contended that mere nonexplanation of the injury found on the member;; of the opposite party should not have been considered as vital and the only duty cast on the trial court was to weigh the prosecution witnesses with greater care and caution and that there is no absolute proposition to through out the prosecution story on non-explanation of the injuries. In other words it is a case of miscarriage of justice and the judgment stands vitiated, as it was wrong for the court to reject the evidence of the eye witnesses.

(3.) In the impugned judgment, the trial court has held that whole story is replete with the absurdity. Episode of snatching the guns was also described to be as absurd and improbable, so much so that according to the court below, the medical evidence was rather compatible with the defence version. The prosecution failed to discharge the onus of explaining the injuries on the accused, which they received in the same occurrence and in absence of the same the court felt doubt in the prosecution version and the evidence of the eye witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4. In other words, by the judgment impugned, the court below held that as material part of the story was suppressed and the prosecution having not come to court with clean hands, the case failed.