Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (DB) No.39 of 1990 =========================================================== The State of Bihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Laxmi Rai son of Din Dayal Rai, resident of Mohalla Manas Naya Danapur, Police Station Danapur, District Patna. 2. Ram Janam Rai, son of late Jamal Rai, resident of Mohalla Ramji Chok Police Station Digha, District- Patna. 3. Bal Kishun Rai, son of Ram Prasad Rai, resident of Kurji Balupar, P.S. Digha, District Patna. 4. Ambika Rai son of Anandi Singh, resident of Mohalla Manpura P.S. Patliputra, District Patna .... .... Respondent/s With Criminal Revision No. 406 of 1990 =========================================================== Satya Narain Singh, son of Jiv Nandan Singh, resident of Mohalla- Keshari Nagar, Police Station- Shashtri Nagar, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Laxmi Rai son of Din Dayal Rai, resident of Mohalla Manas Naya Danapur, Police Station Danapur, District Patna. 2. Ram Janam Rai, son of late Jumel Rai, resident of Mohalla Ramji Chauk Police Station Digha, District- Patna. 3. Bal Kishun Rai, son of Ram Prasad Rai, resident of Kurji Balupar, P.S. Digha, District Patna. 4. Ambika Rai son of Anandi Singh, resident of Mohalla Manpura P.S. Patliputra, District Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== [Against the judgment dated 9th April 1990 passed in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 1989 by Sri Shiveshwar Narain, learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna] =========================================================== Appearance : (In G. APP. (DB) No. 39 of 1990) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shivesh Chandra Mishra, APP For the Respondent/s : None (In CR. REV. No. 406 of 1990) For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : None =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 27-11-2012 Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.39 of 1990 dt.27-11-2012 2 Through Govt. Appeal (D.B.) No. 39 of 1990 and Cr. Revision No. 406 of 1990 judgment dated 9th April 1990 passed in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 1989 by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna acquitting opposite parties, namely, Laxmi Rai, Ram Janam Rai, Balkishun Rai and Ambika Rai, has been challenged. 2. Both have been ordered to be heard together because facts and laws involved in both the petitions are identical. 3. According to allegation, on 27.7.1988 at 9.30 a.m. Satnarain Singh was preparing a passage through land of Nirala Sahkari Grih Nirman Samittee situated at Digha Railway crossing and informant’s munshi Dinesh Singh ( P.W. 4), Ramesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 3), Yogesh Singh (P.W. 1) and Shambhu Singh (P.W. 2) were there. Deep Narain Singh-younger brother of the deceased came on a motor-cycle. Seven persons including Laxmi Rai, Ram Janam Rai, Bal Kishun Rai, Ambika Rai came to the place of occurrence. Three persons were unknown. At the behest of Laxmi Rai firing was resorted by Ram Janam Rai at Deep Narain Singh (deceased) which caused injury in his cheek. Three unknown persons also resorted to firing at informant but it missed. Accused Ambika Singh was threatening local people that the persons coming there would be fired. The police party was seen reaching towards the side but the culprits decamped through a jeep. Accused were chased. The informant took his injured brother to Kurji Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.39 of 1990 dt.27-11-2012 3 hospital but he died. 4. After institution of Patliputra P. S. Case No. 220 of 1988 under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act, investigation was started by P. W. 9 and after submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken. The case was committed after observing paraphernalia. Bal Kishun Rai was charged under [STATUTE] . Ram Janam Rai, Bal Kishun Rai and Ambika Rai were charged under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act. Ram Janam Rai was charged under [STATUTE] for causing death of Dip Narain Singh. Laxmi Rai was further charged under [STATUTE] . Laxmi Rai, Balkishun Rai and Ambika Rai were further charged under [STATUTE] . 5. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses. P. W. 1 Yogesh Singh, P. W. 2 Shambhu Singh, P. W. 3 Ramesh Kumar Singh, P. W. 4 Dinesh Singh, and P. W. 5 Satnarain Singh are said to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. P. W. 6 Uma Shankar Prasad was the doctor who had held autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 7 ASI Shaligram Upadhyay was tendered. P. W. 8 Ram Equebal Mandal was a constable who had carried the dead body for autopsy, and P. W. 9 Diwakar Prasad Singh was Investigating Officer. 6. The trial court disbelieved the prosecution version on Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.39 of 1990 dt.27-11-2012 4 narration of the occurrence and found the accused persons not guilty. The trial court has considered the evidence and has opined a number of contradictions between the versions of eye witnesses and medical version regarding assault. The trial court has also found that many developments were made at the stage of investigation and so it was found that the case was not proved to the hilt. It was also taken into account that not even an independent witness has been examined though it is a definite case of the prosecution that all over labourers were working. Neither even one labour was examined during investigation nor before the trial court. The definite case of the prosecution was also that road was being constructed but not even one worker was produced before Investigating Officer. It was also found that witnesses were withheld deliberately by the prosecution. 7. In a case of acquittal, if the judgment of trial court comes under challenge, the prosecution has to prove that the trial court has erred and has not appreciated the evidence correctl

Applicable IPC Section: 149

Statute Text:
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. If an offence be committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, every other member of such assembly shall be guilty of the offence. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.