IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.44 of 2010 PARMA NAND SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Arvind Kumar-II, Adv For the O.P. Mr. Ajay Thakur, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. For the State: Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. ---------- 5. 20.09.2010 This is an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30.4.2010 of the learned Additional sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Begusarai passed in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2002 whereby the accused/O.P nos. 2 to 8 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/201/120-B/34 of the Indian penal Code. The petitioner Parmanand Singh was the complainant who filed his complaint No. 34C/2000 on 14.1.2000 before the learned C.J.M., Begusarai, alleging that these O.Ps. killed his maternal grand mother at about 7 P.M. on 8.1.2000. The complainant stated that his mother Kaushalaya Devi was daughter of the deceased Ram Sundri Devi who had only issue Kaushalaya Devi and that the deceased was widow and she was having 28 bighas of land in her share and that for maintaining and looking after the lands his (complainant’s mother Kaushala Devi) used to live in her parental house and that on the date of occurrence while Kaushala Devi was living in her parental house, the accused/O.P.s killed the deceased in order to grab her lands. It was further alleged by the complainant that Kaushala Devi had filed a title partition suit no. 53 of 1995 in the court of Sub-judge, Begusarai with respect to deceased’s lands and that in that case earlier evidence of the deceased was recorded by a pleader commissioner in which some incorrect facts were got introduced that Kaushalaya Devi was not the 2 daughter of the deceased and that therefore, the complainant had filed a petition in that title partition suit for examination of the deceased by a pleader commissioner again and that the pleader commissioner was to come on 8.1.2000 for recording the evidence of the deceased in that suit. It was further alleged that pleader commissioner had to come from Begusarai and that the complainant had gone to Begusarai to bring pleader commissioner with him but he was not available since he was out of station for some days and that therefore, the petitioner/complainant came to deceased’s village at Jagdishpur in the night at 9 P.M. and there he learnt from Bhutto Rai, (P.W.2) and Rabindera Rai (P.W.3) the father and son that the O.P.s killed the deceased by strangulating her and they hurriedly cremated the dead body. The petitioner/complainant further alleged that he went to police station for lodging F.I.R. but his case was not taken and that therefore, he filed his complaint before the C.J.M. on 14.1.2000. Thus the complaint was filed with a delay of six days. During trial four witnesses were examined. The P.W.1 was the Kaushalaya Devi, the petitioner/complainant’s mother. P.W.2 Bhutu Rai and his son Rabindra Rai was examined as P.W.3. The complainant Permanand examined himself as P.W.4. In this case the P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are only eye-witnesses to the occurrence were the most important witness to be considered for purpose of deciding the charges. The P.W. 2 states that he was living in the same house, the Aagan of which was divided by a Tatti and the accused/O.Ps. were living in their houses on the other side of the Tatti. He deposed that on the date of occurrence at 7 P.M. he went beside the Tatti and he saw that the accused/O.P.s killed the deceased by 3 strangulating her. This witness does not say that he had gone to other side of the Tatti in the house of the accused/O.Ps. but he says to have been seen the occurrence by going close to the Tatti from his side. Thus he appears to have peeped through the Tatti and he said that Manoj had pressed the neck and the other accused/O.Ps. had caught hold the body of the deceased. This witness claims to have seen the occurrence in the night at 7. A.M. and that too from the other side of the Tatti but he does not mention about any means of light. Therefore, the learned trial court rightly entertained a doubt about the credibility of this witness. Besides this it was also considered that witness and his son i.e. P.W.3 both were having litigations due to long standing land dispute between them and the proceedings under Section 107 and 145 were going on between the witnesses and the accused/O.Ps.. Thus this witness was inimical to the accused/O.Ps., therefore, examining the evidence of this witness with great care and caution as done was rightly required under this circumstances. The learned trial court was not of the view that the witnesses could be safely relied on. The other witness examined on the point of occurrence was P.W.3, the son of the P.W.2. The P.W.2 claimed that hearing hulla he came to the house of the accused/O.Ps. and he claims to have seen the occurrence and he described the occurrence by stating that accused/O.Ps. killed the deceased by way of strangulating her. This witness claims to have seen the occurrence by going towards the side of accused/O.Ps. but he does not give the details of the individual participation of the O.Ps. in the commission of the occurrence. He does not say as to who of the accused/O.Ps. played which part in the commission of the offence. He has said that lamp was lighting but he 4 does not say what was the kind of the lamp. This witness is also a party to several cases with his father against the accused/O.Ps. and thus he is also highly interested and inimical to the accused/O.Ps. In these circumstances, the learned trial court did not feel safe to place reliance on the testimony of this witness also. Besides this the learned trial court also considered that there was delay of six days in the filing of the complaint and the delay was not reasonably explained and simple reasons stated was that police did not accept his case, therefore, he filed the complaint. When the police did not take his case he could have approached the court promptly but he does not explain why delay was made in the filing of the complaint. Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the learned trial court came to find that the prosecution case was not established the charged and the charges were not proved beyond doubts, hence, the accused/O.Ps. were acquitted. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Therefore I see no ground to grant leave to file appeal in this case. In the result, this SLA is dismissed at the stage of admission. Ravi/- ( C. M. Prasad, J.)