The State of Bihar vs Suraj Singh and Others

Anjana Prakash, J.—This Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1990 on 24.2.1994 u/s s. 147, 148, 323, 307, 149 and 379 I.P.C.

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 25.4.1989 the accused persons variously abused the informant and thereafter assaulted him and others and committed theft and also exploded bombs.

The accused persons were charged u/s s. 307/149, 147, 379 and 323 I.P.C. 4. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are said to be eye witnesses, whereas the P.W.2 and P.W.7 are injured persons. P.W.6 is the wife of P.W.2, whereas P.W.8 is the doctor and P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the Investigating Officers.

The court concerned acquitted the accused persons on the ground that even though the two injured had supported the case, but the eye witnesses had given inconsistent evidence which created a doubt on the prosecution case. Moreover, the court below also was of the view that non-examination of the F.I.R. witnesses was fatal to the prosecution and in view of such serious lacuna it was not possible to accept the prosecution case. The court below further held that the delay of two days in institution of the case even though the Police Station was located near the village itself further created a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. Also the fact that no seizure of cartridge, chappals and incriminating articles were effected from the place of occurrence, materially affected the prosecution case.

On going through the evidence of the witnesses and the judgment of acquittal, I do not find any glaring lacuna in consideration of the prosecution case and by no stretch of imagination can it be said to be perverse or against the conclusion that a normal person would draw.

In view of such, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.