RADHIKA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge ­cum - Fast Track Court No.3, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.308 of 1994, whereby the trial court has acquitted the opposite party nos.2 to 4 of the charges framed under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) THIS appeal was admitted for hearing on 16.8.2004 when notice was issued to the opposite party nos.2 to 4 who have since appeared through counsel Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha and Mr. Arun Kumar and the lower court records had been called for. The prosecution case as according to the FIR, in brief is that in the night of 2.7.1992 while the informant Radhika Singh was sleeping in his room which was locked from inside, he heard a gun - shot sound and the cry of his wife who was sleeping in the verandah and when he came out and flashed his torch, he found the accused, namely, Lallan Singh, Sushil Singh, Lakshman Singh, Chandrahans Singh and Brinda Singh surrounding his wife. It is alleged that on being challenged, the accused shot his wife and in defence even the informant fired from his gun which perhaps hit accused Lallan Singh. It is further alleged that on hearing the sound the villagers started gathering and whereupon the accused fled away and accused Lallan Singh left behind his Lungi and his Chappals.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner questioning the judgment and order of acquittal, learned Additional Public prosecution for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.2 to 4. The grounds raised by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner to question the judgment and order of acquittal is that the evidence has not been appreciated by the trial court in its proper perspective and that the informant being an eye witness to the occurrence, his ocular description of the occurrence has been incorrectly disbelieved. It is the argument of learned senior counsel that the finding of the trial court being contrary to the evidence on records, the judgment and order of acquittal is unsustainable. The arguments of learned senior counsel for the petitioner has been seconded by the learned State Counsel. However standing in support of the judgment and order of acquittal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 to 4 has submitted that the entire evidence has been examined threadbare by the trial court which requires no interference especially in absence of any perversity shown by the informant -petitioner or any stark omission on the part of the trial court in appreciating the evidence.