MD.SHAHADAT HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order dated 14.4.2004 as passed by Md. Jaffar, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur under Sessions Trial No. 166/02/Tr. No, 225/03 whereby the accused/O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted on the ground that prosecution did not produce any witness for proving the case of prosecution.

(2.) It is relevant to mention here that the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 21.6.2000 on the statement of informant Shahadat Hussain, the son of the deceased Md. Jahir. The main allegation under the F.I.R. was that on the orders of accused Sk. Khalil, accused Phulketsar @ Soni, Shasha Jha @ Sejam caught hold of the deceased and accused Md. Jamal, Md. Haidar and Sk. Salil who were carrying dagger assaulted the deceased on his abdomen with dagger as a result of which the deceased fell down in injured condition died at the spot.

(3.) IT appears that after submission of charge -sheet the case was committed on 5.3.2002. The trial court framed charge vide order dated 2.7.2003. In the order - sheet dated 2.7.2003 of the trial court specific Section under which charge was framed has not been mentioned and the place for mentioning the Section is blank. But perusal of the form of charge shows that charge was framed under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and explained to the accused. It further appears that after framing of the charge on 2.7.2003 the next date was fixed on 23.7.2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail prayer of the accused Md. Haidar and Md. Jamal were rejected by the High Court and the other accused were on bail. It appears that after framing charge on 2.7.2003 the next date was fixed on 23.7.2003 for producing witnesses and the summon to the witnesses was issued on 26.7.2003 and thereafter, on the next date i.e. 11.8.2003 presiding Officer was on leave. On the next date i.e. 21.8.2003 the Presiding Officer was again on leave. However, in the margin of the order -sheet it is mentioned that service report of the summon had been attached in record. But during hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there is no service report on record. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties was also not able to point out any service report on the record. Thus, it appears that in fact there is no service report on record though it has been mentioned in the margin in the order -sheet that service report on the summon of witnesses was attached on record.