Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ***** Criminal Revision No.1132 of 2002 Against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.05.2002, passed by Shri Arun Kumar Singh, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Case No. 875 of 1990. =========================================================== Chaturi Yadav (P.W. 1), Son of Jagarnath Yadav, Resident of Village- Navtoliya, Police Station – Fullidumar, District – Banka. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Abhimanu Singh, Son of Bishwanath Singh 3. Manohar Singh, Son of Mannu Singh 4. Jang Bahadur Singh, Son of Bishwanath Singh 5. Pankaj Singh, Son of Jang Bahadur Singh 6. Keshav Singh, Son of Jang Bahadur Singh 7. Murari Singh, Son of Mannu Singh All resident of Village – Telia Logayan, Police Station – Fullidumar (Amarpur), District – Banka. .... .... Accused Persons/ Opp. Parties. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, APP. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 22-11-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. This case has been referred to Division Bench by the Hon’ble Single Judge on 16.08.2012. We have taken the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of State and have gone through the entire record. 2. Abhimanu Singh, Manohar Singh, Jang Bahadur Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1132 of 2002 dt.22-11-2012 2 Singh, Pankaj Singh, Keshav Singh and Murari Singh were charged under [STATUTE] . 3. On 26.08.1989, at village Telia Logain, the informant Anandi Yadav was going to the shop of Kapil Babu and he noticed Abhimanu Singh, Manohar Singh, Jang Bahadur Singh, Pankaj Singh, Keshav Singh and Murari Singh coming with the dead body of his brother Mahendra Yadav. The informant enquired as to how the death has occurred and thereafter he was chased and abused. Villagers went and found the dead body of informant’s brother Mahendra Yadav kept by the side of Telia Logain road near Nala. 4. The informant and his brother were doing milk business and the accused persons have not paid money for milk and on demand they have caused the ghastly murder. The case was investigated into but the charge sheet was submitted under [STATUTE] . After cognizance the case was committed and the trial proceeded. 5. Before the trial court the prosecution examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W. 9 was the doctor who held the autopsy of the dead body. P.Ws. 1, 2, 7, 8 and 10 were examined as material witnesses. 6. The doctor P.W. 9 holding the post-mortem has found the following injuries: Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1132 of 2002 dt.22-11-2012 3 (I). Abrasion on the upper part of the neck below the chin. Base was echymosed size 1”x3/4”. (II). Sub-conjunctrivel haemorrhage on both sides the eye lids were blackish. Further injury was : (I). Abrasion on the right side of the neck size 2”x1/4”. (II). Separation of epidermis (a). in front of right leg size 1”x1” (b). in front of left leg size 2”x1” (c). below right nipple size 1”x3/4” (d). dorsal aspect of left hand size 1”x1/2” 7. No external injury except injury no. I was noticed upon the dead body. The death was due to electrocution, shock and haemorrhage. Ante-mortem injury was caused by hard and blunt substance and post-mortem injuries might have been caused during transportation of the dead body. The I.O. while deposing has stated that vide letter no. 5494 of 1989, the A.S.P. has stated for query open about the cause of death and the doctor has reported it that no sign could be found on the dead body if the death is on account of electrocution. 8. The trial court has tried its best to reconcile the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1132 of 2002 dt.22-11-2012 4 statement of material as well as official witnesses but had found a number of serious lacunas. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were residents of Village Telia Logain and their definite belief was that Mahendra Yadav died due to electrocution. P.W. 2 has stated that there was no injury upon the dead body. The evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 and I.O. P.W. 10 put before the trial court and accordingly the trial court relied upon their deposition. The I.O. while deposing stated that electric wire was found touching the dead body and the I.O. stated that it might be due to touching of electric current. The victim might have fallen down on hard surface and the death might have been caused on account of that. This was the vital aspect of the case which created doubt in the mind of the trial court. 9. The prosecution has to establish its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. If two versions appear in course of evidence then it is well settled that the version showing the innocence of the accused has to be accepted. Similar is happened in the present case. The evidence of material witnesses should have been heavily relied by the prosecution has given a complete go by to the prosecution version of manner of assault. A new version came that the death might have been caused by electrocution. Therefore, the prosecution could not discharge its onus of proving the case that it was a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder and the offence Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1132 of 2002 dt.22-11-2012 5 was committed by non else than by the accused themselves. When that gap was missing then the trial court had no opinion but to give judgment against the prosecution and the trial court has accordingly done it. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and analyzing the evidence, we hold that the order of the trial court does not require any interference. 11. In the result, this revision application is held without merit and it is accordingly d

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.