Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.505 of 2012 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Gupta son of Lakhan Sao resident of village- Chilhi, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Rajendra Sah Son of Late Ghutar Sah 3. Sitaram Modi son of Late Govind Modi 4. Ramdeo Sah son of Late Prasad Sah 5. Naresh Sah son of late Keshwar Sah 6. Prakash Sah son of Ramdeo Sah 7. Fulchand Manjhi son of Late Ram Manjhi 8. Madan Sah son of Late Ghutar Sah All resident of village- Chuan, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. M. Z. Hoda (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL C.A.V. ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 8 30-08-2012 The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.4.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 742 of 2001/Tr. No. 81 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. IV, Jamui whereby the respondent nos. 2 to 7 were convicted only for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and were granted benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and they were acquitted from the charges under [STATUTE] . 2. The appellant gave his fard-beyan in Sadar Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2012 (8) dt.30-08-2012 2 Hospital, Jamui on 15.6.1999 at about 5.30 PM stating that his father had gone to see his field. In that field Sitaram Modi and Fulchand Manjhi were uploading the soil over dam and were constructing a canal in the land of the informant. The informant’s father objected to the same which followed hot exchange between the parties, then Ramdeo Sao by Saif, Naresh Sao by lathi, Rajendra Sao by lathi, Madan Sao by Farsa and Prakash Sao by Farsa assaulted the informant’s father. It is further alleged by the informant-appellant that Sitaram Modi gave a Bhala blow and Fulchand Manjhi assaulted the informant by lathi. Rajendra and Ramdeo also assaulted the informant. The aforesaid fard-beyan resulted into registration of Khaira P.S. Case No. 61 of 1999 under [STATUTE] . After investigation chargesheet was submitted under [STATUTE] . The Chief Judicial Magistrate found the case under [STATUTE] and committed the case to the court of Sessions where on appearance of the accused persons charges were explained to them and trial proceeded. The witnesses were examined but the Investigating Officer incidentally was not examined. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2012 (8) dt.30-08-2012 3 appellant submitted that there were enough materials for the trial court to come to the conclusion that charge under [STATUTE] and other offences were also proved but the trial court has erred in exercising its jurisdiction on the flimsy grounds and the case was not as such in which the accused should have been granted benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 4. The trial court has analysed the entire evidences on the record and it discussed that the charge under [STATUTE] was not proved as the informant himself has stated that he and his father were empty handed whereas the accused were having deadly weapons. No one caught the accused persons, so that they could gave no blow with intention to kill. The trial court found that there were no intervening circumstances and so charge under [STATUTE] was not proved. The reasons for arriving at the conclusion have been fully discussed by the trial court. The court has also considered that there was a counter case lodged by Madan Sah against Lakhan Sah and Manoj Sah. 5. In a case of acquittal, the appellate Court can interfere only after finding apparent error which apparently has come on the record and the error was so prominent that it twisted Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2012 (8) dt.30-08-2012 4 the judgment. If two views are possible, then views assuming the innocence of the accused has to be taken into account. The trial court, in the present case, has considered every circumstances and has appreciated the plea of all the parties and has opined that the lack of intervening circumstances were enough and so the charge under [STATUTE] was not found fully established. Similarly the trial court has discussed in paragraph 13 of the judgment that evidences were not enough to presume the guilt of the accused persons under [STATUTE] so benefit of doubt was given to the accused persons. 6. In view of the above discussions, we find that the trial court has considered all the circumstances brought on record and rightly came to the conclusion and passed the reasoned order. The judgment impugned needs no interference of this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Amaresh Kumar Lal, J:- avin/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) I agree. (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.