Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 1212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Pramila Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.495 of 2015
Decided On : 03-09-2015
For the Appellant :Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. Abha Singh, APP
The prosecution must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the absence of independent witnesses and failure to establish the place of occurrence can impact the outcome of the case.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Procedure - The court dismissed the appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal of the accused persons in a case involving charges under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code as well as 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution failed to prove the charges, and the court found no illegality in the acquittal order.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons assaulted and abused the informant and her mother, harvested the standing maize crop from the informant's field, and took it away.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused persons after considering the evidence, which lacked support from independent witnesses and failed to establish the place of occurrence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prosecution's failure to prove the charges, contradictory statements by the informant, and lack of support from witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no illegality in the acquittal order based on the nature of evidence presented and the absence of independent witnesses and establishing the place of occurrence.
Final Decision: The appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal was dismissed for being devoid of any merit.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The instant appeal has been filed under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short “Cr. P.C.”) challenging the judgment of acquittal of opposite party nos. 2 to 6 dated 19.03.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Begusarai in SC/ST Case No. 36 of 2003/0005137 of 2013.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24th April, 2003 at about 7 a.m. at village-Bahadurpur Ghodda, P.S.-Mufasil, District-Begusarai while the informant Pramila Devi was watching her maize field, the accused persons being variously armed came there and told her to go away from the field. They abused her by taking her caste name. When she protested, the accused Yogendra Singh (O.P. No. 1) exhorted and on that order, all other accused persons began to assault her with lathi, stick, fists, feet and butt of pistol. The informant’s mother came in rescue but she was also brutally assaulted by the accused persons. It has further been alleged that the accused persons harvested the standing maize crop from the field of the informant and took away the same.
4. Initially, Compliant Case No. 598C/2003 was filed before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai who referred the same under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. for investigation pursuant to which a police case was registered and investigation was taken up against six named accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons and after taking cognizance of the offences, the case was committed to the court of Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge for trial.
3
5. The trial court framed charges under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code as well as 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced.
6. In course of trial, altogether three witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of the charges. They are P.W. 1 Arjun Yadav, P.W. 2 Pramila Devi (informant) and P.W. 3 Mukesh Kumar. The prosecution failed to prove any document in support of the charges during trial.
7. It would be relevant to mention here that P.W. 1 Arjun Yadav did not turn up for cross-examination during trial and, hence, his statements made in examination-in-chief cannot be considered to be evidence.
8. P.W. 2 Pramila Devi, informant of the case, did not support allegation of crop cutting. In her deposition, she failed to disclose even the khata no. and plot no. of the field in question. She has admitted in cross-examination that after the assault was made upon her mother-in-law, the accused persons came which would mean that they did not abuse or assault the informant prior to the assault made upon her mother-in-law. In the FIR, P.W. 2 has stated that the accused persons had first abused and assaulted her and, 4 thereafter, when her mother-in-law came in rescue, she was also assaulted by the accused persons. Apparently, the informant (P.W. 2) has given a contradictory statement while deposing in court.
9. P.W. 3 Mukesh Kumar, dewar of the informant, has also not stated about the description of the maize field where the alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place. He has also not supported the case of crop cutting or theft of crop. He has also not supported the occurrence of abuse and assault. He has not supported the prosecution case as alleged in the FIR that his mother was also assaulted by the accused persons. Thus, it would appear that P.W. 3 has also not supported the major part of the occurrence as alleged in the FIR.
10. The court below has appreciated the evidence led before it. It has considered the fact that no independent witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution and in absence of examination of the investigating officer of the case, the place of occurrence was also
