JHAPAS ANSARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 8 as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) This Criminal Appeal (DB) has been preferred by appellant Jhapas Ansari who happens to be son of informant as well as deceased against Judgment of acquittal dated 17.11.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-I Bagaha West Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 602 of 2006 by which and whereunder he acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 8 of the charges framed against them for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201/34 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that except the informant namely Taimila Khatoon prosecution failed to examine the remaining prosecution witnesses and the informant Taimila Khatoon was too not produced for cross-examination.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that the learned trial Court did not give proper opportunity to the prosecution to examine its witnesses and as a matter of fact the learned court below in very hectic manner closed the prosecution case and passed the impugned Judgment under section 232 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 He further submits that as a matter of fact P.W.1 Taimila Khatoon (Informant) was examined before the trial Court but her cross-examination was deferred on the prayer of defence as the learned counsel of defence had prayed before the trial Court regarding non-availability of the case diary and the learned trial Court adjourned the case. However the case diary was never produced before the trial Court but the learned trial Court ignoring the aforesaid fact without expunging the evidence of P.W.1 Taimila Khatoon closed the entire prosecution case and passed the impugned judgment under section 232 of the Cr.P.C., 1973