IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.760 of 2002 [Against the judgment and order dated 21.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional Court No. 2 (Fast Track), Patna in Sessions Trial No. 789 of 1987/510 of 2001] ======================================================= Umesh Narayan, son of Sri Laxmi Narayan Singh, resident of village- Swetha, P.S. Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna, at present residing at Mohalla- 9, MIGH, Kankarbagh Colony, P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna-20. … Informant-Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ram Swarath Singh, son of late Naurangi Singh 3. Dinesh Singh, son of Ram Swarath Singh 4. Prince Singh, son of Ram Swarath Singh All resident of village- Koriyawan, P.S. Masaurhi, District- Patna. 5. Manoj @ Vinay Singh 6. Pardeshi Singh Both sons of Bijendra Singh and both resident of village- Madarpur, P.S. Punpun, District- Patna. 7. Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Sintu, son of Ramashish Singh. 8. Ramashish singh, son of Sarbanand Singh, both resident of village- Bhatheli, P.S. Maner, District- Patna. .. Accused-Opposite Parties. ======================================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner :Mr. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Adv. For the State :Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The complainant- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 21.3.2002 passed Patna High Court CR. REV. No.760 of 2002 dt.30-11-2011 2 by the learned Additional Court No. 2 (Fast Track), Patna in Sessions Trial No. 789 of 1987/510 of 2001 by which the accused- opposite parties have been acquitted from the charge under Section 307/149 and 379 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.11.1986 the complainant- petitioner was getting his paddy harvested in his field bearing Plot No. 2197 at Village Switha. In the meantime all the accused opposite parties along with 8 to 10 unknown persons came there armed with various weapons and started looting the paddy. Accused Dinesh Singh with the help of other accused by tying a rope around the neck of the complainant proceeded to hang him from a Jijai tree. Accused Prince Singh instigated that he should be hanged. In the meantime, on raising alarm by the complainant his father and brother rushed and saved him. The accused persons looted the paddy worth Rs.1000/- 3. The complaint-petition was forwarded to the police station on the basis of which a Phulwari police case was registered. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.760 of 2002 dt.30-11-2011 3 case was committed to the court of session. After trial all the accused have been acquitted. 4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the learned trial court has considered in paragraph 33 that the eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 have supported the prosecution but the learned trial court has gone beyond its jurisdiction and has misdirected itself to make finding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the informant was in possession of the land in question or he has raised the crops rather the documents filed by the accused show that the accused were in possession and therefore there was no occasion for the informant to go to the land in question to harvest the paddy from that place. He has further submitted that accused Dinesh Singh has also filed Phulwari P. S. Case No. 384 of 1986 dated 29.11.1986 for the same occurrence in which final form (Ext. 8) was filed holding the case not true. He has further submitted that the injury report dated 28.11.1986 (Ext.1) shows that the informant was injured and there was injury on his neck Patna High Court CR. REV. No.760 of 2002 dt.30-11-2011 4 and both knees. 5. No one appears on behalf of the accused opposite parties even today. 6. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. 7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. Accused opposite parties will appear before the learned trial court who will rehear both the parties again and will pass the order in accordance with law. 9. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Patna High Court Dated 30th of November 2011 N.A.F.R/Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)