Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.199 of 2012 ====================================================== Mahendra Singh, son of Late Shital Singh, resident of village-Barhatiya, P.S.-Vaishali (Belser O.P.), District-Vaishali. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Mahatab Ahmad, son of Sultan Ahmad Khan. 2. Sultan Ahmad Khan, son of Late Fazal Rahman Khan. 3. Azmat Ali, son of Late Abdul Hafiz Mian. 4. Ainul Mian, son of Late Yusuf Mian. 5. Shamshad Mian, son of Late Sadique Mian. 6. Janardan Ram alias Jaga Ram, son of Lantu Ram. All are residents of village-Majhauli, P.S.-Vaishali (Belar O.P.), District-Vaishali. 7. Raushan Kumar, son of Dinesh Singh. 8. Dinesh Singh, son of Ram Chandra Singh. Both are residents of village-Barahatia, P.S.-Vaishali (Belsar O.P.), District-Vaishali. 9. The State of Bihar .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 2 27-02-2012 This is an appeal under Section 372 Cr. P.C. against acquittal. The respondents were charged, inter alia, under [STATUTE] for causing the death of the son of the appellant. We have heard Sri Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, learned senior counsel in support of the appeal and we are convinced that the order under challenge requires no interference. No perversity or illegality either in fact or in law has been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.199 of 2012 (2) dt.27-02-20 2 / 312 2 pointed out. Some of the things which we may note are as under:- The case was instituted purportedly on a written report given by one Meena Devi, wife of the deceased Rakesh Kumar. In course of trial, she has turned hostile. In course of trial, the prosecution themselves admit that the written statement which was treated as F.I.R. was got scribed at the instance of P.Ws. 6, 8 & 9 by P.W.-4. P.W.-5 is the appellant himself is the father of the deceased. Meena Devi was asked to sign the statement and subsequently the case was instituted on basis thereof. What we find curious is that the incident took place at 10.30 a.m. in the morning on 15.5.2006. This appellant being P.W.-5 carried the injured son to the hospital where his statement was recorded at 1 p.m. That did not disclose the name of any of the accused persons. For some curious reason, the police did not register it as an F.I.R. though, it was first information. This fact the I.O. admits. If this be so, then the written report filed by P.W.-10 Meena Devi, the wife of the deceased, cannot be treated as the first information report as it would be hit by Section 162 Cr. P.C. It is curious to note that though the so-called written statement leading to the case was received at 7 p.m. and case was registered thereafter but before that the inquest had already been prepared. Post mortem already conducted and body already handed over to the father P.W.-5. In the inquest, again, there were no names mentioned with regard to the assailants. All this clearly created serious doubt upon the prosecution version. Then, there were statements of two injured person and the Magistrate who was there present, being a polling day. They were all made prior to the first information report being the statement of P.W.10 Meena Devi. They were also never treated as the first information report. In none Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.199 of 2012 (2) dt.27-02-20 3 / 312 3 of those, name of any accused was given. Curiously, in cross-examination of the investigating officer admits that the written information of P.W.-10 (Meena Devi) was received by him in course of investigation. If it were so, how could it be registered as a first information report and if this be so, then where is the first information report on basis of which investigation was taken up. P.Ws. 6, 8 & 9 who have supported the prosecution case are on inimical terms with the accused persons. It may also be noticed that these witnesses claim to be present when the incident took place. They are related to the informant or for that matter, this appellant. If that be so, then names of the participants, i.e., these accused persons should have transpired and disclosed to this appellant but still every body maintained a silence in this regard till the written information was given in the evening. P.W.-5 is the present appellant and the father of the deceased. In his cross-examination he admits that till the inquest report was prepared in the afternoon, he did not know the name of the assailants. These appear to be conflicting and contradictory statements. If in view of these basic contradictions and conflicts, the trial court has given benefit of doubt to the accused persons, we see no illegality in the same. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves in the matter. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Sanjeet/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.