JODHI YADAV Vs. KASHI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been directed by the informant petitioner against the impugned judgment and order dated 19-6-1996 passed in G.R. Case No. 616 of 1995/Trial No. 656 of 1996 by Sri Quayum Khan, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih whereby and whereunder opposite party Nos. 1 to 8 have been found not guilty for the offence under Ss. 147, 323, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and they were acquitted on the ground that it is a case of no evidence.

(2.) The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the written report of the informant petitioner aforesaid lodged before Jamua P.S. on 16-4-1995 at 2.00 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 15-4-1995 at 9-00 p.m. near village Mangodih, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih and a case under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 337, 341 and 427, IPC was instituted against O.P. Nos. 1 to 8. The police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet for the offences aforesaid and cognizance in this case was taken on 15-7-95 by the CJM and case was transferred to the Court of Sri Md. Quayum Khan for disposal. The learned Magistrate explained the substance of accusation under S. 251, Cr. P.C. of the offence under Ss. 147, 323, 337 and 427, IPC to O.P. Nos. 1 to 8 vide order dated 10-1-1996 since it was a summons case and directed the prosecution to produce witnesses for their evidence fixing 9-2-1996. Thereafter six adjournments were granted to the prosecution to adduce evidence but no witness was produced by the prosecution. It appears that the prosecution was accorded last chance for adducing evidence vide order dated 13-6-1996 and the learned Court below at his own accord also issued summons through S.P. on the witnesses for their evidence for which no application was filed by the prosecution and the case was adjourned to 19-6-1996. It appears that the prosecution examined P.W. 1, a formal witness, who has proved the signature of Sri S. K. Singh, O/C Jamua P.S. appearing on the formal FIR which was marked as Ext. 1. Since no witness was in attendance, the learned Court below closed the evidence for the prosecution, recorded the statement of O.P. nos. 1 to 8 aforesaid under S. 313, Cr. P.C. and finding it a case of no evidence, acquitted them, as stated above. It is relevant to mention here that the order sheet of the lower Court record does not show that the service report of the summons issued for the evidence of the witnesses through S.P. has been received.

(3.) Assailing the impugned judgment and order of the learned Court below it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of the prosecution has been could illegally by the learned Court below vide order dated 19-6-1996 without having received the S.R. of summons sent to the witnesses for their evidence through S. P. and as per the settled law the learned Court below ought to have exhausted all the processes for procuring the attendance of the witnesses of the prosecution before closing the prosecution evidence and as such the impugned order is improper, illegal and incorrect. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the case of State of Gujrat v. Nagin Amara Vasava, 1982 Cri LJ 1880 (Gujarat) and Rajdeo Singh v. Ramladu Singh 1979 BLJR 231. It has further been submitted that the case filed by the petitioner is the counter version of the case which O.P. No. 3 Sukhdeo Yadav has filed against the informant and others regarding the occurrence of the same day and as per settled law both the case and the counter case ought to have been tried by one and the same Court and this procedure was not followed which has caused prejudice to the petitioner.