Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.64 of 2012 (2) dt.24-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.64 of 2012 ====================================================== Laxman Prasad Yadav .... .... Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Narain Sinha, Sr.Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. S.C.Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 2 24-01-2012 We have heard Mr.Suraj Narain Sinha, learned Senior Counsel in support of this appeal, which is against acquittal. The incident is of 4.1.1991.For twenty two years, the prosecution was able to examine only one witness and one, the informant, as a court witness. There being no other witnesses. The trial court acquitted the accused persons finding no reliable material to prove their guilt beyond doubt. Considering the above fact that the prosecution has remained dormant for over twenty two years, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and re-open the whole matter after such a long delay. Mr. Sinha submits that justice should be justice for both the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.64 of 2012 (2) dt.24-01-2012 parties i.e. for the defence as well as the prosecution. We do not disagree. Justice means justice for all the parties and not luxury of the prosecutor to continue the litigation over two decades. If the prosecution failed to conduct itself, the prejudice has been caused to the defence. The defence does not complain. The prosecution complained, that is unsustainable. The informant has woke up from deep slumber after two decades to accuse the prosecuting agency but for two decades had never complained so long as the prosecution was pending. That cannot be accepted. It was next submitted that the charge was amended on 2.9.2011 and accordingly in terms of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the prosecution had a right to lead fresh evidence. We have examined the charge, as produced by the appellant himself. What had happened was that the accused persons were charged under [STATUTE] in relation to the murderous assault to Ramchandra Yadav and Babu Lal Yadav. As the two die, the accused persons were further charged for causing their death i.e. under [STATUTE] but because of typographical mistake, the name of one of the deceased persons was left out. This was added on 2.9.2011. The defence did not plead prejudice in any manner. By then only one prosecution witness had been examined i.e. P.W.1 and a court witness. We have examined Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.64 of 2012 (2) dt.24-01-2012 the deposition of both the witnesses. They were under no impression that the charge under [STATUTE] was in relation to causing the death of one person only. Both had deposed in respect of death of two persons. The prosecution was thus not prejudiced in any manner. They had proceeded on basis of charge for causing the death of two persons. What we find curiously is that the prejudice ought to have been to the defence but the defence never complained. How could this prejudice of this defence be taken up by the prosecution we failed to understand. In the judgment , under appeal, the trial court has duly recorded that it took all necessary steps to secure the attendance of the witnesses. If the witnesses did not turn up and the prosecuting agency was not prompt in that regard, it is not open to the Court to become prosecutor and take all steps on behalf of the prosecution. The informant left all along and now has woke up after two decades when the order of acquittal is passed. The trial court has examined the deposition of both the witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and the court witness no.1, who is none else but the informant and the trial court has found their evidence to be unreliable. Thus, on the whole we are of the view that if the prosecution is conducted negligently and the informant sleeps it is not expected from the trial court to take the role or assume the role of the prosecutor and take the responsibility upon itself to prove the guilt of the accused persons. The trial court cannot be Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.64 of 2012 (2) dt.24-01-2012 faulted. Having perused the judgment, we find no illegality or impropriety committed by the trial court. This appeal merits no consideration and it is dismissed accordingly. singh/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.