STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SACHCHIDA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Government Appeal No. 39 of 1978 and Criminal Revision No. 1380 of 1978 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, as both of them are directed against the same order of acquittal - -the former having been filed by the State of Bihar and the latter by the informant. The Prosecution case is that on the following day of the Holi Basioura Mela was being held at Sabbalpur on 2nd March 1972. Informant Jairam Singh and other prosecution witnesses had also gone to that Mela. While Jairam Singh was standing at about 8 A.M. accused -respondent Sachida Singh come from behind and poured acid on his head which he had brought in an earthen pot Jairam Singh sustained burning sensation as a result thereof and he fell down at that very place. P.W. 2 Krishna Prasad, who also happened to be by the side of the informant Jairam Singh, also sustained some injures by the same act of the accused. Both these injured persons were taken to a private doctor and from there to the police station where a Sanha was recorded on the statement of informant Jairam Singh at about 9. A.M. The police referred the informant to Patna City Hospital for medical examination and report and, on receipt of the report, the police registered a case. After completing investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against respondent Sachchida Singh, who was in due course tried on the charge under Sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was ultimately acquitted by Sri Sudarshan Upadhyay, Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, by his judgment dated 9th August, 1978.

(2.) The defence of the accused was that he was implicated falsely on account of enmity.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant (State of Bihar) (Sic)s that the occurrence has been fully proved by P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 who have figured as eye -witnesses to the occurrence besides the informant (P.W. 7) and the learned Magistrate was wholly unjustified in acquitting the accused on the ground that there is no evidence on he record to prove that it is accused Sachchida Singh who had poured the acid on the informant Prima, facie, there may be some force in he submission of the learned counsel, but it does not appear necessary to go into this question in view of the patent illegality committed by the trial court in this case.