KAPIL PRAJAPAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the first informant against a judge of acquittal. Opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 were the accused persons. This revision application under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment dated 31-7-93, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge VI, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 114/89, whereby the accused persons, who are opposite parties herein, have been acquitted of the charges under Ss. 302, 149, 147 and 201, IPC.

(2.) The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 13-10-87, at about 8 a.m. While the petitioner, a rickshaw-puller, was bringing his rickshaw to his house, he found that the accused persons (opposite parties herein), constructing a naad and chabutra to provide fodder to their cattle which had narrowed his Rasta. The informant objected, which led to exchange of hot words on the arrival of the petitioner's father (Kailash Prajapat) and his mother (Phulmani Prajapat). The accused persons brought lathis and on the order of accused Sukhram Prajapat (opposite party No. 5), Rampati Prajapat (opposite party No. 2) assaulted the father of the petitioner on his head, and the remaining accused persons armed with lathis assaulted him on different parts of his body. Consequently the informant's father became senseless. He was then taken to hospital and ultimately died. Jamuna Singh, Berender Singh, Kaushal Singh, Mithilesh Singh, and Ratan Singh, all co-villagers, had rushed to the place of occurrence and the accused persons on their intervention had left the place. The accused persons were ultimately charged under the aforesaid sections and were tried in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, VI, Gaya.

(3.) During course of trial, the prosecution had examined the following five witnesses, Jamuna Singh, PW. 1, Mithilesh Singh, PW. 2, Berender Singh, PW. 3, Md. Azizur Rahman, PW. 4 and Ambuj Prasad, PW. 5. PW. 4 had proved the FIR (Ext. 1), PW. 5 had proved the written report (Ext. 2), as well as the endorsement thereon (Ext. 3). PW. 1, PW. 2, and PW. 3 are charge-sheeted witnesses who have denied to have any knowledge of the occurrence. They were declared hostile and were put to cross-examination by the prosecution. In cross-examination by the prosecution, they were confronted with their statements said to have been recorded by the police in course of investigation. They denied having stated before the police that all the accused persons assaulted Kailash Prajapat and his wife with lathi and Danta as a result of which Kailash Prajapat had received head injury. Nothing significant has come in their cross-examination.3.1. The prosecution had last examined the witness on 6-3-93, and opportunities were given to the prosecution till 24-7-93 to enable it to produce its remaining witnesses. In view of the position that PW. 1, PW. 2 and PW. 3 were declared hostile, and in the absence of any other witnesses at all, the trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused persons of all the impugned judgment. Hence this criminal revision at the instance of the informant.