BANSIDHAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS case has been transferred from Patna. Nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahato, assisted the Court on behalf of the appellant as Amicus Curiae.

(3.) IN support of the Appeal, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahato, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that it will appear from Paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment itself that the First Information Report, Fard -beyan of the informant, the seizure list have not been proved; the medical evidence has not been produced, the Investigating Officer has not been examined and the trial Court observed that the prosecution has badly conducted the case. Mr. Mahato further submitted that there were vital contradictions in the evidences but the same were brushed aside by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that PW 1 (father of the prosecutrix), inter alia, clearly stated that he used to cultivate the lands of the appellant, but left the same prior to the occurrence. It is further stated that his cattle were deposited in Argara of the father of the co -accused Bablu Single Mr. Mahato submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.