Vyas Narain Singh vs The State of Bihar, Shyam Karan Pandey and Others

Honourable Mr. Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.—It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 that opposite party No. 2 Shyam Karan Pandey died on 15.03.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not controvert this fact.

Let the name of opposite party No. 2 be deleted.

The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 4.07.2002 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in S.Tr.No. 301/1989 by which all the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.11.1985 at about 8.00 P.M. Prem Shankar aged about 15 years, son of the informant was exploding crackers on the occasion of the Diwali at his Darwaja and the informant was sitting there. The accused Shyam Karan Pandey (now dead) made some satirical remarks against Prem Shankar which was protested by Prem Shankar. There was altercation. When the informant went there to pacify the matter, the accused Rajendra Mishra, Sharhu of Shyam Karan Pandey caught his left hand and accused Ajay Kumar Pathak, son-in-law of Shayam Karan Pandey caught hold of the informant by his wait and accused Shayam Karan Pandey took out a Khanjar from his waist and assaulted him on his forehead. The accused Shayam Karan Pandey again assaulted the informant on his shoulder and the informant fell down and cried for rescue. Thereafter, Madan Singh, Shankar Rai, Ramayan Rai, Shyam Prasad and Ramanand rushed there. Shayam Karan also assaulted Prem Shankar and Ravi Shanker, the sons of the informant with Khanjar causing them injuries. In the occurrence, the wrist watch was taken away. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Rivilganj P.S. Case No. 123/1985 was instituted against the accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions. After the trial, all the accused were acquitted by the impugned judgment.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the accused opposite parties.

It appears from the impugned judgment that the prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses, out of them, P.W.1 Ravi Shankar is the son of the informant, P.W.2 Rama Nand Singh is the cousin of the informant, P.W.3 Prem Shankar is the son of the informant, P.W.4 Raj Kumar Devi is the wife of the informant and P.W.5 Vyash Narayan Singh is the informant himself, P.W.6 Dr. Roop Narayan Lal Dev is the doctor and P.W.7 Srikant Singh is the S.I. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused. According to the defence, it is the prosecution party, who has raided the house of the accused Shyam Karan Pandey and in order to grab it by evicting the accused and assaulted him, who became injured and in order to save the skin the prosecution party has instituted the case.

It further appears that there are 12 witnesses in the charge-sheet and the other witnesses are co-villagers of the informant, who have not been examined. The learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and has found that their evidence is not convincing and not trustworthy. Hence, the evidence has not been relied upon. The learned trial court has held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused and acquitted them.

Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. This petition is dismissed.