SURESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 21-1-1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 193/1992, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 from the charges framed under Section 302/114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief as stated that on 20-7-1989 at about 4 p.m. there was some not exchange of word between the petitioner and O. p. No. 2 over the question of removal of creeper which spread up to Balcony of the petitioner where the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 are the resident of the same building. When the opposite party No. 2 could not remove the creeper, there was exchange of abuse and in the meantime the petitioner's son Kumud came down and asked the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 as to why such thing happened and the creeper has not been removed. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2, Bindeshwar Prasad Singh @ B. P. Singh along with other accused persons shouted to assault Kumud whereupon the opposite party No. 3 Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Prasad assaulted Kumud with iron rod on his head, as a result of which Kumud sustained serious injuries and he was taken to Bokaro General Hospital, where he was declared dead.

(3.) The witnesses were examined in the Court below and after having heard both sides and considered the evidences on record, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons/opposite party Nos.2 to 5. Hence, this revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted, at the very outset, that the learned Sessions Judge, committed gross error in acquitting the accused persons on mere presumption and flimsy grounds, when there is overwhelming evidence against the accused persons for committing murder of Kumud with iron and rod which also finds support from the medical evidence. It is further submitted that P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 are the eye-witnesses on the point of fatal assault and their evidences have fully been corroborated by the evidence of doctor, P.W. 7, but even then the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the material fact which leads to only conclusion that the accused persons committed murder at the relevant time. It is also argued that the P.W. 4, the father of the deceased being the informant made some contradiction about the main assailant as set out in the FIR which will only go against P.W. 4, the Informant, the maker of the First Information Report and not against other eye-witnesses, who are consistent and certain about the occurrence. It is also argued that there was enmity between the parties from before which led the occurrence happened in the manner as alleged, as well as the enmity cuts both end.