LALDEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order under challenge is dated 9.12.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. II, Jehanabad in S.T. No. 520/2003 (F.T.C. II) whereby and whereunder he has rejected the petition filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the informant. The informant is the petitioner here. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order he has come here for quashing the impugned order.

(2.) BRIEF facts relating to the present case are as follows: '' That an F.I.R. at the instance of Laldeo Prasad as Sakurabad P.S. Case No. 18 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was drawn against Binay Bind and opposite party in respect of commission of murder of father of the informant. As per the allegation on 12.3.2001 at about 6 in the evening the petitioner and one Binay Bind arrived at the Darbaja of the informant. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that Binay Bind was armed with pistol whereas the accused Anuj Bind armed with gun, Akhilesh Bind armed with lathi, Bhola Bind were armed with lathi arrived. Of -course mother, wife and sister of Bijay Bind were unarmed but all of them came on the Darbaja of the informant and surrounded his father and Bijay Bind opened fire from pistol causing fire arm injury on the neck of the father of the informant as a result of which he fell down and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Fardbeyan of Laldeo Prasad, the informant was recorded in the Hospital where victim was brought for treatment. The genesis of occurence as stated in the Fardbeyan is an altercation having been ensued between Binay Bind and mother of the informant in the same morning of the incident and as such she was extended threat by Binay Bind. Further it has been stated that Binay Bind and his entire family members had been to the place of the informant due to previous grudge and enmity for committing murder.

(3.) IT has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as a matter of fact the trial proceeded and in course of trial three witnesses, namely, Laldeo Prasad, the informant, Devanti Devi, mother of the informant and Bimal Bind have stated and fully corroborated the facts incorporated in the Fardbeyan of the informant and in such a situation the intention of these opposite party for whose trial, be came here was quite clear right from beginning, otherwise there was no occasion for them to arrive at the Darbaja of the informant variously armed with gun, pistol and lathi, just in order to score previous grudge and enmity and by way of vengeance; because of some exchange of hot words had ensued between Binay Bind and mother of the informant in the same morning of the occurrence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that of course there was discharge of these opposite party at the time, when cognizance order was passed, on submission of the charge sheet only against one but that discharge would not come in the way, so far trial of the opposite party against, whom legal evidence has come in course of trial of Binay Bind, in view of the decision reported in 1993(2) P.L. J.R. 602 (Bishwanath Tato and Ors. vs. the State of Bihar)