MADAN PRASAD GUPTA Vs. SHEO CHANDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.5.1992 passed by Sri Diwakar Mishra, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chapra in G.R. Case No. 2224/88. T.R. No. 135/92 arising out of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 160/88. after grant of special leave to appeal by order dated 30.7.1992 vide S.L.A.No. 37/1992.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the appellant (informant) along with his wife was taking his day meal (lunch) on the date of occurrence i.e. 2.10.1985. Two accused No. 1 & 2 (since acquitted) started breaking the wall of the house of informant. The informant stopped them to do so but the accused persons entered his house after breaking the wall. The other co-accused namely, Ranu Devi also assaulted the informant by throwing brick bat from roof of her house. The two accused (since acquittal) namely, Shankar Prasad and Sheo Chandra Prasad assaulted the wife of informant with lathi and also ransacked the articles of the courtyard. On the report of appellant (informant) the case was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted only against accused Shankar Prasad. The fact is that the informant, in course of investigation filed a protest complaint petition which was registered as Complaint Case No. 324/85 in the Court below. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against all the three respondents under Sections 451, 427, 342, 323 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, trial proceeded and concluded in acquittal of the respondents. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from perusal of the judgment it is apparently clear that the accused had strong motive to commit the offence against the appellant (informant). It has been further submitted that the Court has no good reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 1 the informant and CW 1 his wife. Their evidence is supported by injury report, as well. It has been also stated that the Court had no reason to disbelieve that the partition wall was not demolished and accused persons did not trespass into the house of the informant. The finding of the learned Magistrate is on conjecture. However, it has been submitted that the finding of the learned Magistrate that the injury report was not proved is also an error of record.