IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1139 of 2007 SIMRIKHI DEVI, W/O- ANGRAHIT NONIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARASADA, P.S.- DHANSOI, DISTRICT- BUXAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KAMLA NONIA SON OF HIRA NONIA 3. RAMCHANDRA NONIA, S/O- LATE RAVINDRA NONIA. 4. BIHARI NONIA SON OF BIRA NONIA. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-PARSADA, P.S.- DHANSOI, DISTRICT- BUXAR. For the petitioner : Mr. Digvijay Kumar Ojha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 4 29.06.2010 Heard both sides. Present revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.6.2007 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 2003, 450/2006, 190/2005 (arising out of Dhansoi P.S. case no. 56 of 2002) whereby the opposite parties herein have been acquitted of the charges levelled under sections 148/302/149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Petitioner is mother of the victim and the informant of Dhansoi P.S. case no. 56 of 2002. As per the First Information Report (Ext.1), she along with her son Murari Nonia (deceased) were proceeding towards village Parsada from Jamauli. As soon as she reached near Chhitandihara Fal at about 8.30 a.m., she found several accused persons ( O.P. nos. 2 to 4 herein and others) assembled at the said place. The accuseds made an attempt to confine them. His son Murari Nonia made an attempt 2 to flee away towards village Moharia . All the accused persons offered a chase and captivated him near village Mohraia. He was tied with a rope and thereafter driven towards Fal where Hira Nonia, Kamla Nonia, Bihari Nonia and Ramchandra Nonia(opposite parties herein) and others opened fire at the victim as a result whereof, he dropped dead. She assigned motive for the said occurrence. This gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 245 of 2003, Sessions Trial No. 415 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No. 190 of 2005. All the aforesaid Sessions Trials were heard and disposed of by the impugned judgment. At the trial, the prosecution seems to have examined 09 witnesses. P.W. 1 and P.W. 9 are formal witness who proved and brought on record F.I.R. (Ext. 1) and the case diary (Ext.3). P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were the independent witnesses. In their respective depositions, all these witnesses did not support the prosecution case. It appears from the judgment that in fact they made an attempt to contradict the prosecution case as a result whereof at the instance of the prosecution, they were declared hostile. P.W. 8 (Simrikhi Devi), therefore, remains as the sole eye witness. The doctor ( P.W. 7 ) has been examined who has proved the post-mortem report (Ext. 2) which established that it was a case of homicide caused by fire arm injuries. Learned Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence on record, found and held that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish and prove the case by cogent and reliable 3 evidence. Consequently, the accuseds (O.P. nos. 2 to 4 herein) were acquitted of the charge. Learned counsel while assailing the sustainability of the impugned judgment states that the mother of the victim (P.W. 8) is the author of the First Information Report (Ext.1). She has supported the prosecution case in toto. The evidence of the doctor is on record which definitely establish that her son was killed in the manner as alleged by her in the F.I.R. giving rise to the trial in question. It is next submitted that quality and not quantity of the evidence is required to be seen and evaluated. A solid rock in the sea of falsehood may, in the broad facts of the case, justify conviction of the accused(s) put on trial. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. In his submission, learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in evaluating the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have carefully gone through the judgment. Learned Trial Court while dealing with the evidence of the informant (P.W. 8) has found and recorded as under: “P.W. 8 Simarikhi Devi is a informant of the case. She narrated the entire story before court. She stated that about 4 ½ years ago alongwith her son Muari (deceased) were going to his village for agriculture purpose but accused persons confined them and after that caught hold Murari and taken away towards village Mohariya and killed by fire arm and his dead body again taken away to the Mohariya Fal. She stated in para 3 of her evidence that due to fear she run away at village Rasen. She further admitted that when accused persons caught 4 hold his son at that time she fled away from that place. When police came at 10 A.M. then she came and given her fardbeyan. It shows that she is not eye witness because she admitted that due to fear she run away towards village Rasen and in her absence occurrence was taken place. According to para 6, 7 and 8 of her evidence it proved that several litigations and murder cases pending in between her family and family of accused persons. It shows that both parties are inimical to each other and series of the murder cases pending in between them. In para 9 she admitted that when she reached near the Chhitandihara Fal at that time Chhathu was murdered and in that murder case his husband and Dewar are named accused. In para 10 she again admitted that she run away from that place when accused persons caught hold his son. In para 11 she further admitted that when police came, then she went and saw the dead body of his son. She further admitted that she does not disclosed how many fire arm injury caused in the body of his son. Again she admitted that fire arm injury are bound in chest, back, feet and Filly. In para 12 of his evidence she admitted that she went at village Rasen and hide herself in a field of wheat. According to para 7 of the case diary 9ext.3) surrounding at the Chhitandihara Fal the paddy crops was standed but this witness stated that she hide herself in a wheat crops. In the month of November, no wheat crops is so long so in that field any body hide himself. From the above evidence its shows that this witness does not see the occurrence from her own eye, hence her statement is not trustworthy and reliable. She given the evidence against accused persons due to enmity.” From perusal of the aforesaid finding, it would thus appear that the evidence of the informant (P.W. 8) required to be evaluated with due care and caution. The Supreme Court of India faced with somewhat identical situation placing reliance on its earlier judgment rendered in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka found and held as under in paragraph 17 of its judgment rendered in the case of Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 712: 5 “17. In this connection, we refer to the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka wherein it has been observed that an appellate court has full authority to reappreciate and reconsider the evidence in a case of acquittal barring a case where two views are possible on the evidence and one favouring the accused has been taken. However, where the judgment of the trial court is based on a complete misreading of the evidence and a view in favour of the accused was not justified and only one view with regard to the culpability of the accused was possible, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it did not interfere. Similar views have been expressed in Swami Prasad v. State of M.P. and a plethora of other judgments. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interference by the High Court was called for in the circumstances.” This Court finds from the materials on record that two views was/were reasonably deductible from the evidence available on record and the learned Trial Court has taken a view which is consistent with the principle of innocence on which our criminal jurisprudence is structured. Learned Trial Court, in my view, has not committed any patent illegality meriting any interference with the impugned order. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )