Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (DB) No.17 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Malikant Khan Son Of Late Sarjun Khan Resident Of Village Parari, P.S. Bangaon, Dist - Saharsa 2. Churan Sah Son Of Late Baso Sah Resident Of Village Parari, P.S. Bangaon, Dist - Saharsa .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) ----------- 2 23-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the State of Bihar. The case relates to the alleged killing of informant’s son. It has been alleged that informant’s son was administered poison forcibly in front of Vatika Restaurant. Two accused persons namely, respondent nos. 1 and 2, were put on trial. Charges were framed under Sections 302/34, 328 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and witnesses were examined. The Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.17 of 2012 (2) dt.23-08-2012 2 learned Additional Sessions Judge (Mr.Ram Pratap Asthana), Fast Track Court No.III, Saharsa by order dated 11.05.2012 in Sessions Trial Case No. 435 of 2003 arising out of Complaint Case No. 148 of 2001 (Saharsa P.S.Case No. 124 of 1994, G.R.Case No. 389 of 1998) has acquitted the accused persons. The sole evidence of the prosecution was that the deceased prior to his death has named these two accused who were responsible for causing death. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, the statement of the deceased was with regard to cause of death by the accused, so this alone was sufficient for the trial court to presume that the death was on account of administration of poison by the accused. The trial court has considered the entire evidence and has opined that there is Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.17 of 2012 (2) dt.23-08-2012 3 no evidence of administering poison by the accused persons, the alleged eye witness Shyamakant Khan has not seen the deceased in lying condition on the road in front of Vatika Restaurant, there is no evidence to prove that the eye witness Shyamkant Khan, deceased and the accused persons and Suman Chaudhary were present in Vatika Hotel prior to the alleged occurrence, no staff of Hotel including Manager was examined by the prosecution to corroborate the presence of the above named persons in the hotel prior to the occurrence, no independent witness has been examined though offence was committed on busy thorough fare, no one had come to rescue the deceased from being administered poison by both the accused, both the accused persons are very old and one of the accused has been assessed at 69 years of age and it was not assumed for such an old man to be strong enough to force an young and healthy man to administer poison, Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.17 of 2012 (2) dt.23-08-2012 4 the viscera report was also not brought on record and the Investigating Officer finding the case to be false has recommended for prosecution of the informant under [STATUTE] . In a case of acquittal, this Court can only interfere with the judgment if the same is either perverse or beyond records. We have gone through the judgment and found that the impugned judgment has been passed after considering every circumstances appeared on the record. No inference can be drawn that the death was on account of administering poison. Thus the judgment does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. Tahir/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 182

Statute Text:
Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. Giving false information to a public servant in order to cause him to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any person. Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause such public servant: to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.