Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (DB) No.12 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Sumeshwar Sharma S/O Late Dukhan Sharma R/O Village - Jaitpur, P.S. Haspura, District - Aurangabad ( Bihar ) 2. Mahendra Sharma S/O Late Buchchu Sharma @ Suryadeo Sharma R/O Village - Jaitpur, P.S. Haspura, District - Aurangabad ( Bihar ) 3. Manoj Sharma S/O Sumeshwar Sharma R/O Village - Jaitpur, P.S. Haspura, District - Aurangabad ( Bihar ) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, 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) --------------- 3 01-08-2012 Heard Mr.Ashwini Kumar Sinha for the appellant. There is a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act through I.A.No. 1253 of 2012. The limitation to file appeal has expired on 01.11.2010. The appeal was filed after a long lapse of time. We have applied ourselves upon the facts available on the record. The State of Bihar has challenged the judgment dated 29.07.2010 passed by Dr.Ratan Kishore Tiwary, Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Aurangabad in S.T.No. 251 of 1998 (Com.No. 516 of 1996/25 of 2001 relating to Haspura P.S.Case No. 60 of 1995 whereby respondent nos. 1 to 3 were acquitted Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.12 of 2012 (3) dt.01-08-2012 2 from the charges under [STATUTE] and 3(2)(IV) of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to allegation, on 16.10.1995 at 7.00 P.M. the complainant was asked by Satyendra Sharma to work in his field and when he refused to do, then the accused persons burnt his house. A case being Haspura P.S.Case No. 60 of 1995 was registered in which after investigation final report was submitted by the police and it was accepted. Being aggrieved by the acceptance of the final report, the matter was reagitated and a protest-cum-complaint was filed upon which the case proceeded. The accused persons faced trial. The trial court after analyzing the evidences found many inconsistencies in the prosecution version and opined that the evidence adduced by the complainant was not enough to held the accused persons to be guilty. It has also been observed that the statement under Section 164 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure cannot be treated to be in evidence and the reliance by the prosecution upon that statement was not proper. The trial court after considering the evidences on record has opined that the charges were not proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. The civil litigation between the parties were also taken Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.12 of 2012 (3) dt.01-08-2012 3 into account. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the evidences were enough to hold guilty to the respondents. We have analysed the evidences on record and has applied our minds towards the judgment and the submission of the learned counsel for the State. The trial court has analysed the evidences and the analysis of the same indicated that the case of the prosecution/complainant was not proved at all. The judgment of acquittal can only be interfered with if it is either perverse or illegal. In the judgment, the reasonings given by the trial court is correct and proper and it needs no interference by this Court. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal itself has been dismissed on merit, no separate discussion is required to be made with regard to Interlocutory Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly I.A.No.1253 of 2012 also stands dismissed. Tahir/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.