Brij Bihari Ray vs State of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 1249

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Pat) 1249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Brij Bihari Ray : Appellant
Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. : Respondents
Decided On : 12.11.2024
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 108 of 2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tej Pratap Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. A.G.

Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973–Section 372–Appeal against acquittal–in case of appeal against acquittal, the principles required to be applied by the Appellate Court are drastically different from those which are applied in case of appeal against conviction–In the present case, main allegation of causing injury by lathi is against the cause of trial–Only allegation against the Accused/Respondent No. 2 to 4 is throwing bricks on the injured persons–There are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on material points, like genesis and manner of occurrence–The informant deposed in his examination-in-chief that there is land dispute between the parties and not the plucking of mango, whereas, in his fardbeyan he stated that occurrence took place on account of altercation once plucking of mangoes–Further, in his fardbeyan, he has not stated that Dinanath Rai exhorted his son to kill the deceased, whereas, in the examination-in-chief he deposed that Dinanth Rai exhorted his son to kill the deceased –In the fardbeyan, the informant has not stated about any assault by any lady by lathi but in his examination-in-chief he has deposed that mother of Anil also assaulted Muni Shankar–I.O. did not turn up for full cross-examination–Doctor, conducting the autopsy not examined–While examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., though the accused have not explained the circumstances, but have denied every charge and claimed to be innocent–Enmity between the prosecution and the accused side being found, false implication of Respondents No. 2 to 4 cannot be ruled out–prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt–appeal dismissed accordingly. (Paras 8, 16, 22 to 32)

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.01.2020 passed by learned Fast Track Court- II, Bhojpur at Ara, in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1997, arising out of Ara Mufassil P.S. Case No. 59 of 1997, whereby the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of all the charges as framed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case as emerging from the fardbeyan of the informant/Munnilal Rai to Police Officer of Ara, Muffasil Police Station on 12.05.1997 at 7:30 AM at his door is that yesterday dated 11.05.1997 at 7:30 AM, there was altercation with Munishankar Rai and Srinivas Rai @ Malik Rai. In course of this altercation, Srinivas Rai, Nand Ji Rai and Anil Rai, who were carrying lathies in their hands, and Ashok Rai, who was carrying pieces of bricks, assaulted Munishankar Rai and Shivshankar Rai as well as Dudhnath Rai and badly injured them. All three injured persons got unconscious and fell down at their door. On raising hulla, when co-villagers Ganesh Yadav, Bilash Yadav and ladies of his family were taking the injured persons to hospital for their treatment, they were again assaulted by Rita Kumari, Ful Kumari, Dulari Devi, Jhanjharu Devi by pieces of bricks from the roof of the house of Srinivas, causing injury on the chest of Dudhnath Rai and oozing blood from his mouth. Munishankar Rai and Shivshankar Rai also got injury on their head. Those persons were also taken to Sadar Hospital, Ara. The condition of Dudhnath Rai and Munishankar Rai was found to be serious by the Doctor at Ara Hospital and hence, they were referred to Patna and were taken to Patna for treatment. Soon thereafter, it was informed by Gopal Rai that Dudhnath Rai had died. It has been also mentioned by the informant that at the time of altercation regarding plucking of mangoes at 7:30 AM on 10.05.1997, Dudhnath Rai was not present at home. However, the matter was settled. But when Dudhnath Rai came back home next day, the occurrence had taken place on account of plucking of mangoes.

Factual Background

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No. 59 of 1997 was registered on 12.05.1997 against eight accused persons including the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 337 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Hence, Sessions Trial bearing No. 341 of 1997 commenced. Charges were framed under Sections 307/149, 302/149 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and against accused Nand Ji Rai and additional charge under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed. During trial, three accused persons, namely, Nand Ji Rai, Sri Nivas Rai and Dinanath Rai died and hence, trial was conducted only against respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

5. During trial, the following eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution:—

(i) P.W. 1 :- Munishankar Rai

(ii) P.W.2 :- Rameshwar Rai

(iii) P.W. 3 :- Munnilal Rai (Informant)

(iv) P.W. 4 :- Sunita Devi

(v) P.W. 5 :- Singhasani Devi

(vi) P.W. 6 :- Brij Bihari Rai

(vii) P.W. 7 :- Sheoshankar Rai

(viii) P.W.8 :- Manju Singh (I.O.)

6. The prosecution also brought on record the following documentary evidence:—

(i) Ext.-1- Signature of Munishankar Rai on the fardbeyan

(ii) Ext.-1/1- Signature of Munilal Rai on the fardbeyan