IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.919 of 2008 ================================================== Kranti Devi, wife of late Barmdev Yadav, resident of village- sohar Bigha Tola- Rupaspur, P.S.- Takari, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Bablu Kumar, son of Krishna Yadav. 3. Krishna Yadav, son of Charitra Mahto. 4. Mahendra Yadav, son of Pradip Yadav. 5. Gaya Yadav, son of late Harihar Yadav. 6. Bijay Yadav, son of late Saryug Yadav. (All residents of village- Sohar Bigha, Tola- Rupaspur, P.S.- Tikari, District- Gaya) .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr.Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the O.P.Nos.2 to 6 : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, Add. P.P. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The informant petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Gaya in S.T.No.350/2006 arising out of Tikari P.S. Case No.159/2004 by which the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted for the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.919 of 2008 dt.13-12-2011 2 341, 342 and 302 of the I.P.C. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.11.2004 at about 8.00 P.M., the accused persons including the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 armed with various weapons came to the house of the informant abused and took away her husband Brahamdeo Yadav (deceased) and threatened the family members not to come out from their house and Brahmdeo Yadav was taken towards the house of Krishna Yadav. In the morning, when the informant went near the house of the Krishna Yadav, her husband was found dead having several wounds. The reason for the occurrence is there is litigation between the deceased and the accused. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. The case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed on 10.08.2007. After the trial, the accused were acquitted vide the impugned order. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it appears that charges were framed against the accused on 10.08.2007. The order was passed to issue summons to the witnesses and the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.919 of 2008 dt.13-12-2011 3 notices were also issued on 17.08.2007, but the petitioner did not get the summons/ notice for evidence and without examining any material witnesses, the evidence has been closed. Only P.W.1 Murari Prasad has been examined, who is formal witness and has proved the signature of S.I. Ram Rup Das. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioner had knowledge about the case. The trial of the other accused has also been held in which the informant petitioner has given her evidence and she did not depose in this case knowingly. The other accused have also been acquitted in which the prosecution has adduced evidence. He has further submitted that at the time of institution of Tekari P.S. Case No.159/03, there are 12 named accused and unknown accused. The trial of Charitra Yadav and Sita Devi have been split up being S.T.No.104/2005 and six witnesses including the petitioner was examined and the accused have been acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt vide judgment and order dated 4.12.2008. In S.T.NO.305/06, the prosecution was given sufficient time to examine the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.919 of 2008 dt.13-12-2011 4 witnesses and in compliance of the order of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.23806/2007, the charges were framed and trial had to be concluded within 9 months. The Superintendent of Police, Gay was also directed to produce charge-sheet witnesses so that the trial of Sessions Case No.305/2006 is complete positively within nine months. Even after this order, the petitioner and other witnesses were not examined and the court finding no way out has to take a decision in pursuance to the aforesaid order of this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the trial court records, it appears that charges were framed against the accused opposite parties on 10.08.2007 in pursuance to the order dated 17.07.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No.23806/2007, the learned trial court had been directed to frame charges against the accused and the Superintendent of Police, Gaya was also directed to produce the charge-sheet witnesses so that the trial of Sessions Case No.350/2006 is concluded as early as possible in any case within nine months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of that order. This order was passed keeping in view of Patna High Court CR. REV. No.919 of 2008 dt.13-12-2011 5 the fact that the accused Mahendra Yadav, opposite party no.4 was in custody w.e.f.24.09.2005 and Vijay Yadav, opposite party no.6 was in custody w.e.f.29.09.2005. It appears from the trial court records that order was passed for issuance of notice on 10.08.2007 and the notices were issued to the witnesses on 17.08.2007. Thereafter, bailable as well as non-bailable warrant was also issued against the witnesses. It further appears from the requisition of warrant of arrest (page 74) that warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on 5.12.2007, but there is no service report/ execution of warrant of arrest has been brought to my notice to show that there is service of summons or the execution of warrant of arrest against the petitioner nor any service report has been brought to my notice to show that the other accused have been served with the summons of the bailable or non-bailable warrant issued against the witnesses. It further appears that the learned trial court to complete the aforesaid order of this Court has closed the prosecution evidence on 8.05.2008 only examination of Patna High Court CR. REV. No.919 of 2008 dt.13-12-2011 6 prosecution witness no.1 Murari Prasad, who is a formal witness to have identified the signature of Ramrup Das, S.I. on the fardbeyan and on the same date, the prosecution evidence has been closed and on the same date, the witnesses have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the case was adjourned to 17.05.2008 for defence evidence and hearing. On 17.05.2008, both the parties have been heard and the case was fixed for order under Section 232 Cr.P.C. on 23.05.2008 and on 23.05.2008, the impugned order has been passed acquitting the accused opposite parties as no witness has supported the prosecution case. After going through the record, it appears that it is one of the examples in which proper steps has not been taken by the Superintendent of Police, Gaya to produce the evidence even in pursuance to the order dated 17.07.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No.23806/2007. The learned trial court has also not taken effective steps for the production of witnesses. It has only tried to conclude the trial without taking into consideration the duties of the trial court. The learned trial court should have taken leave of this Court if it could not do the trial within the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.919 of 2008 dt.13-12-2011 7 stipulated time granted and should have taken all the necessary steps for the production of prosecution witnesses. It is settled principle of law that a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the presiding judge must ceased to be a silent spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial. In the case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another versus State of Gujarat & others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 35 as follows: “This Court has often emphasized that in a criminal case the fate of the proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties, crimes being public wrongs in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affect the whole community as a community and are harmful to the society in general. The concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim and the society and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies. Interests of society are not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. Courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice- often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the “majesty of the law”. Due administration of justice has always been viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of the particular Patna High Court CR. REV. No.919 of 2008 dt.13-12-2011 8 case, protecting its ability to function as a court of law in the future as in the case before it. If a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves. Courts administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to proceedings, even if a fair trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and standing of the judges as impartial and independent adjudicators”. From perusal of the record of the present case, I find that fair trial has not been done. For the reason mentioned above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned trial court for taking steps for further trial in this case. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 13th of December, 2011 N.A.F.R./V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)