Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.673 of 2012 (2) dt.16-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.673 of 2012 ====================================================== Md. Nijam, Son of Late Moiesh, Resident of Village – Nirpur, P.S. – Chautham, District – Khagaria. .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Brahmdev Thakur, Son of Late Accho Thakur of Village – Nirpur, P.S.- Chautham, District – Khagaria. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mohan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 2 16-07-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and for the State. The appellant has challenged the order of acquittal dated 19.01.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Khagaria in Sessions Trial No. 304 of 2009, whereby he found no evidence against the appellant and acquitted him from the charges under [STATUTE] and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant has made elaborate argument and has tried to persuade that the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. We have perused the judgment and heard the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.673 of 2012 (2) dt.16-07-2012 submissions. The appellant is Chowkidar and he has alleged that O.P. No. 2 has killed is own grand son Chhathu Thakur aged eleven years by use of pistol. The trial court has applied its judicial mind and has discussed the evidence of all witnesses. Not even one witness has claimed himself to be an eye witness. Even the informant’s evidence has been discussed in para-20 and the trial court has noted that the informant himself has claimed that he has not seen the actual killing rather he has merely seen the pistol in the hands of the appellant. From the judgment it appears that the appellant himself is an accused of a case of abduction alleged by O.P. No. 2 and in that case family members of O.P. No. 2 were the witnesses. The appellant has tried to kill two birds from one stone. No witness was there to support the case. The acquittal is correct and needs no interference. This appeal has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. KKSINHA/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.