Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, KHATIM REZA, JJ.
Smita Kumari @ Smita Devi W/o Late Suresh Kumar @ Bablu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1381 of 2019
Decided On : 02-08-2022
Acquittal - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 372, Indian Penal Code - Sections 323/34, 302/34 - Arms Act - Section 27
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, widow of the deceased, filed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons (Respondent Nos. 2 to 5) under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The deceased was attacked and fatally wounded by the accused persons, leading to the filing of a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found the offence under Section 304 part-II of the Indian Penal Code proved against one of the accused, but acquitted respondent nos. 2 to 5 due to lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also highlighted the right of the victim to file an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues: The main issue was the establishment of the allegations against respondent nos. 2 to 5 beyond reasonable doubt, and the interpretation of the victim's right to file an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for evidence beyond reasonable doubt to establish allegations, and highlighted the absolute right of the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the prosecution failed to establish the allegations against respondent nos. 2 to 5 beyond reasonable doubt, and the Trial Court's finding did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
JUDGMENT :
KHATIM REZA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sheikhpura in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2016 arising out of Mehus P.S. Case No. 03/2015 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted respondent nos. 2 to 5 of the offences punishable under Sections 323/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The informant (PW-5) who happened to be the brother of deceased is no more. Accordingly, the widow of the deceased has filed this appeal against acquittal of the accused persons (Respondent Nos. 2 to 5). The statutory right to file the appeal to the widow of the deceased flows from Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2008.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.03.2015 at about 02:00 p.m. when the informant was engaged in the business in his shop, located near college gate, Mehus, the informant’s brother namely, Bablu Prasad Singh @ Suresh Kumar came out of his house and was proceeding towards Barbigha Bazar. At that point of time, accused Rishi Kumar was waiting with hoe (kudal) in his hand, accused Manoj Kumar was armed with lathi, Murari Kumar was carrying pistol in his hand, Rampravesh Singh also had pistol in his hand, Shashi Bhushan Singh had crow-bar (khanti) in his hand and Kanhaiya Kumar had a rod and they all attacked the informant’s brother. On hulla being raised, the informant rushed towards the spot. The accused persons assaulted the informant also. However, the informant saw his brother being attacked and wounded and who felt unconscious with his nose, ear and mouth bleeding. The accused persons fled away after committing the offence. The informant took his brother to referral hospital, Barbigha where, doctors referred to Patna. However, the next day at Patna, the informant’s brother died.
5. The incident led to filing of Mehus P.S. Case No. 03 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against respondent nos. 2 to 5 and others and on the death of Suresh Kumar (brother of the informant) Sections 323 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code were added.
6. The police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet no. 13 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Section 323/34 and 302/34 against the accused Rishi Kumar and the investigation with regard to respondents no. 2 to 5 was kept pending. Later on, charge-sheet no. 01 of 2016 under Section 323, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against Shashi Bhushan, Kanhaiya Kumar, Rampravesh Singh and Murari Kumar.
7. The Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2015 commenced against Rishi Kumar on 23.11.2015 and Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2016 started against respondent no. 2 to 5 on 15.05.2017 and the charges in both the Sessions Trials, charges were framed under Section 323/34, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.
8. On assessing the evidences, the Trial Court found commission of offence under Section 304 part-II of the Indian Penal Code proved against Rishi Kumar who on sudden provocation was found to have given single blow by Kudal and that there was no evidence to suggest that he had repeated the blow. The medical evidence also corroborates one comminuted fracture at 2½” x 2” involving left parietal and left temporal bone and nature of injury suggested by the doctor caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. The PW-1, PW-2 deposed in their evidence that there was altercation between the deceased and the accused persons that in the meanwhile Rishi Kumar gave a deadly blow. The trial court noticed the depositions of PWs. 3, 4 and 5 full of contradiction, on or scrutining of the evidence.
9. The medical evidence clearly suggest that there is no other injury on the body of the deceased save and except the head injury by sharp cutting we
The victim has an absolute right to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the prosecution must establish allegations beyond reasonable ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the absolute right of a victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal without seeking leave to appeal, as per the legal principle estab....
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse or fundamentally flawed, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecu....
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence of abetment for conviction under Section 306 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in an acquittal appeal, the appellate court cannot substitute its own view unless the trial court's findings are demonstrably unsustainable.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless there is a clear error or misreading of evidence.
The appellate court cannot substitute its own view in an acquittal appeal unless the findings of the trial court are demonstrably unsustainable.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that two reasonable views should not disturb the trial ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
