IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1123 of 2007 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -816 Year-2000 Thana –KOTWALI (BARARI) District- BHAGALPUR =========================================================== Lakshman Ram son of late Chhedi Ram, resident of Mohalla-Gopalganj Upper Bazar P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Saroj Kumar Singh son of late Hemraj Pd. Singh, resident of Mohalla Khajarpur P.S. Barari, District Bhagalpur. 3. Nandan Sharma son of Nathuni Thakur, Resident of Sirawa Patna P.S. Besaria District East Champaran. 4. Sanjay Mohan Jha son of Dinesh Jha, resident of village Karuna, P.S. Alamnagar Dist. Madhepura. .... .... Opp.Parties. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.C. Verma,Mr. Natraj Verma Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP For the opp. parties : Mr. Amrendra Kumar & Mr Manish Kumar, Advocates. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-05-2017 PW-4 being the father of the deceased has filed the present Cr. Revision application calling in-question the legality of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.05.2007 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No-10, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 1414 of 2005/751 of 2006 whereby the 03 accused(s) including the opposite party nos.3 and 4 herein were acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the IPC. 2. The informant Saroj Kumar Singh lodged the case on Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1123 of 2007 dt.03-05-2017 2/6 08.12.2001 that his wife informed him on telephone that his tenant at the ground floor has committed suicide and the dead body was hanging from roof with a bed sheet. In course of investigation which ensued, the informant was made an accused along with the opposite party nos. 3 and 4. Be it noted that the informant turned accused was impleaded as opposite party no.2 in this proceeding but his name was deleted from the array of party as he was reported dead. 3. At the trial, the prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, examined 12 PWs including the petitioner (PW-4). The other relevant witness was PW-5 (wife of the deceased), PW-6 Dr. Sohan Prasad Choudhary who held autopsy and proved the post mortem report (Ext.6). PW-8 is the wife of the informant landlord, PW-9 is the first Investigating Officer (IO) and PW-11 is the second IO. The learned Trial Court while evaluating the evidence of PW-4 has noted that he had expressed only suspicion against the accused persons of having committed murder of his son as there was some audit going on in the office and the deceased was not falling in line with the accused(s). It may be pointed out that opposite parties No. 3 and 4 were then posted in the office of the deceased as Junior Engineer and Clerk respectively. They were holding out threats to his son as was disclosed by the deceased to him on phone. The learned Trial Court, found that his statement earlier recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1123 of 2007 dt.03-05-2017 3/6 was at variance with the deposition as while deposing in Court he also roped in accused Nandan Sharma. The Trial Court, on going through his deposition found that the theory of the deceased having committed suicide got affirmation as PW-9 also found that there was only entry in the house through the grill gate which was found locked from inside and was broken in presence of the IO to enter into the house when it was seen through the window that the deceased was hanging from the roof. The testimony of PW-5 ( wife of the deceased) and PW-8 did not throw much light on the prosecution case. The Trial Court found that she had presented herself for recording C.D. statement by the IO at least 05 weeks after the occurrence. The Doctor (PW-6) who conducted autopsy on the deceased found few injuries on the occipital part of the deceased. besides the ligature mark of size 7”x 2” on interior and lateral portion of the neck which was in continues. The cause of death opined by him was asphyxia due to ligature around the neck. The other injuries were found to have been caused by hard and blunt substance. On these evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court held that complicity of the accused put on trial for having committed death of the deceased was far from being convincing and reliable. There were sharp contradiction(s) in the evidence of the relevant witness. However, considering the nature of injury found on the person of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1123 of 2007 dt.03-05-2017 4/6 deceased, the Trial Court did not conclude that it was a case of suicide and held the prosecution had completely failed to prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of crime save and except suspicion expressed by the father of the deceased PW-4 which got some support from PW-5 (wife of the deceased). Accordingly, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused(s) of the charge(s). 4. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the deceased had serious injuries on his occipital part from which it is evident that he was subjected to assault by hard and blunt substance before being hanged. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the same. The evidence of PW10 (second IO) has not been considered. The evidence of the wife and father of the deceased was also not correctly appreciated. There is grave error in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties conversely submits that such submission have been made on the premise that the learned Trial Court found it a case of suicide committed by the deceased. This is, in fact, not the case. The Trial Court, on appraisal of relevant evidence found and held that except the suspicion raised by the petitioner and the widow of the deceased there was no other reliable evidence produced by the prosecution to conclusively prove the guilt of the accused of having assaulted the deceased before he Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1123 of 2007 dt.03-05-2017 5/6 was hanged or strangulated. A suspicion, howsoever strong, would not take the place of proof unless there is cogent and reliable evidence to prove the charge. The Court should be slow in disturbing the findings of the learned Trial Court as the impugned judgment cannot be said to be perverse. 6. The Court is mindful that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to prove every link of the chain of the circumstances proving only the guilt of the accused. Learned Trial Court in appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution has found that there was no convincing reliable evidence to prove the implication of the opposite parties in the crime save and except the suspicion raised against them in the evidence of father ( PW-4) and the wife of the deceased (PW-5). What shall be the ambit and scope of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 397 of the Cr. P.C. has been considered and spelt out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manik Shankarrao Dhotre & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 CRI.L.J 1505 at para 6 as under:- “6. Before I proceed to consider arguments of learned advocate Mr. Salunke, appearing for the applicants and learned A.P.P., it may be mentioned that the scope of Revision Application is limited. Unless there is substantial reason to hold that the appreciation of evidence done by the trial court and the appellate Court is perverse or Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1123 of 2007 dt.03-05-2017 6/6 founded on misinterpretation of evidence, it would not be proper to interfere with the findings of facts. The Revisional Court would not, normally, interfere with the fact finding process unless it can be said that the interference is called for in order to prevent miscarriage of justice.” 7. If the trial Court in consideration of the case has committed any grave error resulting in complete miscarriage of justice only then the Court can invoke its jurisdiction. The counsel for the opposite parties have placed the evidence at length and submitted that they do not conclusively prove the guilt of the appellant. It may be noted here that when two views on the setting of evidence on record are possible and the Trial Court has taken one view which is not shown to be wholly perverse it would be inappropriate on the part of the revisional Court to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. Law in this regard is settled beyond cavil. 8. Considering the facts aforesaid, in my view, the present application is devoid of merit. Dismissed. Shyam/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 12.05.2017 Transmission Date 12.05.2017