PATNA, India, Oct. 14 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 15:

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against judgment of acquittal dated 07.12.2024, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in Sessions Trial No. 174(A) of 1993 (CIS No.01 of 2015), arising out of Nagar P.S. Case No.0070 of 1993, whereby Respondent No.2, namely, Kripa Jha @ Kripanand Jha has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the charge of Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant along with Jagannath Singh used to work as an agent at private bus stand, Madhubani. It is alleged that Jagannath Singh had some previous dispute with regard to agentship of the bus stand with Jhagru Jha, Kripa Jha, Pramod Purbey and Raman Jha. On 03.03.1993, Jhagru Jha, Kripa Jha, Pramod Purbey and Raman Jha came at a tea stall where Jagannath Singh was present, caught him and stabbed knife on his stomach, chest and back, due to which he got injured and fell down and then the informant and others came at the place of occurrence, took the injured to hospital but on the way, he succumbed to the injuries.

3. On the basis of written report of the informant, Nagar P.S. Case No.0070 of 1993 was instituted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up by the police. The police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against Respondent No.2 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether five prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Phul Singh, PW-2 Ram Nath Yadav, PW-3 Bipin Kumar Singh, PW-4 Ram Kripal Yadav and PW-5 Sanjay Kumar Singh. The prosecution has not produced any documents. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. The defence has also produced certain documents which were marked as 'Exhibits' i.e., Ext-A, certified copy of the FIR of Madhubani Town P.S. Case No.379 of 1986, Ext.-B certified copy of the F.I.R. of Rajnagar P.S. Case No.58 of 2000 and Ext.-C certified copy of the F.I.R. of Madhubani Town P.S. Case No.400 of 1991. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused person was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused person.

5. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the materials available on record, and the evidence produced before the Court, acquitted the accused person observing that no documentary evidence was placed before the Court and fardbeyan, FIR, charge-sheet and inquest report has not taken in evidence. The Doctor, who has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased, has not been examined by the prosecution and the postmortem report has also not been taken into evidence. The I.O. has also not been examined. The prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond any reasonable doubts.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in proper perspective and the settled preposition of law. The learned Trial Court has also failed to consider the settled principles of law to the extent that the chain of evidence and link in the circumstances are firm, definite and conclusive to hold the accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that the learned trial court has failed to peruse the original case record of S.T. No.174 of 1993 despite the petition filed by the prosecution for its perusal which was already attached with the present trial by the order of the Trial Court dated 10.09.2018/16.01.2019 containing the deposition of the Doctor, I.O. postmortem report and other Exhibits.

7. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is no perversity in the judgment of the learned trial court, and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the order of the learned Trial Court requires no interference in the present case.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State and have also gone through the records of the case.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMyNzEjMjAyNSMxI04=-NACXvkByiD4=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.