SHIV CHARAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed by Shiv Charan Yadav informant against the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Godda, dt. 27-7-1985 passed in G.R. No. 3/82 acquitting the accused under S.232, Cr. P.C.

(2.) It appears that on 12-1-1982 the petitioner gave a fard-beyan at about 11 p.m. in Rajaun police station in injured condition saying that while he was coming from Charkha village he saw Sarjug Yadav, Anirudh Yadav, Ram Prasad Yadav and Chaturbhuj Paswan sitting near Matkhani Dar, Sarjug Yadav was armed with garasa and others with lathi. When the petitioner reached near the place suddenly Sarjug Yadav asked his friends to kill the petitioner (informant) whereupon Sarjug Yadav and other accused persons started assaulting him. Sarjug Yadav gave a garasa blow on the neck of the informant-petitioner. To save the informant Raju Manjhi came in between and as such the garasa blow given by Sarjug Yadav fell on the head of Raju Manjhi. Ayodha Manjhi also received lathi blow in saving the informant. The informant was also assaulted by lathi. In the meanwhile when villagers came running then the accused person fled away. On the basis of a lard beyan a first information report was registered on 12-1-1982 under Ss.323, 324, 326, 307/34, I.P.C. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet and thereafter the ease has been committed to the Court of Session.

(3.) It appears from the order-sheet that the trial started on 29-4-1985. On that date only accused Ram Prasad Mahto appeared. No P.Ws. appeared and the Public Prosecutor was directed to procure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses on 11-5-1985. On 11-5-1985 the accused persons were present but no prosecution witness was present, and the Public Prosecutor took time till 1-6-1985 to secure the attendance of the witnesses. On the said date only two accused appeared but no prosecution witness was present. A petition for time on behalf of the prosecution was filed with a prayer to adjourn the case till 22-6-1986, as in spite of all efforts no prosecution witness had appeared. The court directed the office to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Godda. The case was again taken on 24-6-1985 and on that date no witness on behalf of the prosecution appeared. The Public Prosecutor was directed by the Court to secure attendance of the witnesses and the case was adjourned to 10-7-1985. On 10-7-1985 also no prosecution witness appeared though it is stated in the order of the said date that summons had been issued through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Godda, but S.R. had not been received. The case was again adjourned to 23-7-1985 as last chance on the prayer made on behalf of the prosecution with specific direction to the Public Prosecutor to secure the attendance of the prosecution witness otherwise necessary order would be passed. Again on the said date no prosecution witness appeared and the public prosecutor filed a petition with prayer for adjournment of the case for tomorrow which prayer was allowed, with specific direction to him to procure the attendance of the witness. On 24-7-1985 again attendance of the prosecution witness had not been secured. Again the public prosecutor filed a time petition with a prayer for adjournment of the case for next date i.e. 25-7-1985. He was also directed to secure the attendance of the prosecution witness on the said date. No prosecution witness appeared on the said date and so the public prosecutor filed a petition with statement that in spite of steps taken and wireless message sent no witness turned up. The case was adjourned to 26-7-1985 for recording statement of the accused under S.313, Cr. P.C. On 26-7-1985 all the accused persons appeared and their statement u/s. 313, Cr. P.C. was recorded and the case was adjourned for argument on 27-7-1985. On 27-7-1985 the public prosecutor appeared on behalf of the prosecution and so also the learned counsel on behalf of the defence. The argument under Ss.323, Cr. P.C. was heard, and the impugned order acquitting the accused was passed.