HARI KISHORE MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner at whose instance Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 were tried by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar, in G.R. No. 1309/91 and T.R. No. 453/94 and ultimately acquitted by judgment and order dated 31.10.1994, seeks revision of the judgment of acquittal. Opposite Parties were tried under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326, IPC relating to an occurrence on 3.10.1991. The prosecution case was like this Dilip Mandal, the brother of the petitioner was ploughing in his field and his father was sitting in the field. The acquitted accused persons came in a body armed with sharp cutting weapons. They brutally assaulted his father. The time of occurrence was at 7 a.m. A case under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307, IPC was registered against the accused persons. The father of the Informant had received injuries. He was examined by a doctor. The injury report was submitted to the I.O. During trial five witnesses were examined between 8.6.1993 to 1.6.1994. On 17.3.1994 bailable warrant was ordered to be issued against the Informant but according to the petitioner, summonses were not served. On 26.8.1994 summonses were ordered to be issued against the I.O. and the doctor but summonses were not served upon the I.O. and the doctor. The Trial Court on the very next date i.e. on 9.9.1994 without service of summons closed the prosecution case. This is the grievance of the petitioner.

(2.) On 31.10.1994 Petitioner-Informant filed a petition for adducing the evidence. His prayer was refused and he was not allowed to examine witnesses resulting in miscarriage of justice.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court failed to consider the material witnesses and further debarred the petitioner to adduce the witness and the prayer in this regard was made. The order-sheet dated 26.8.1994 shows that the Magistrate directed that the summonses be issued to the Investigating Officer and the doctor. On 9.9.1994 without considering the fact that the summonses were served or not the Magistrate closed the case observing that the case was pending for the evidence since 5.2.1993 despite summonses were already issued to the witnesses. The petitioner filed an application for adducing the evidence on 31.10.1994. The learned Magistrate, perhaps, without considering the application filed by the Informant acquitted the accused persons and then recorded that the sufficient opportunity was given to the prosecution hence the application for adducing the evidence was rejected. The Magistrate was in a hurry since the judgment was ready and he was not in a mood to grant further time. The doctor who had examined the father of the Informant was not examined. Although four witnesses were examined, two were declared hostile. Dilip Mandal, the brother of the Informant, no doubt, was the eye-witness to support the prosecution case. It is admitted fact that there was land dispute of between the parties and several cases were pending. Another witness Ram Mandal had not seen the occurrence. No independent witness was examined by the Magistrate.