IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.9 of 2010 MAKBUL AHMAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 14.05.2010 This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal as passed by a learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah under Sessions Trial No. 362 of 2003 whereby the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. Besides recording the order of acquittal, the learned trial judge has also imposed compensation of Rs. 5000/- on the petitioner/complainant to be paid to the O.P.Nos.2 to 4. The prosecution case was that the petitioner/complainant’s daughter Hasan Tara had lodged a case Under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Abdul Rahman (deceased) and his Mama Md. Abdullah. The further allegation was that in that case the deceased Abdul Rahman had not surrendered in Court and in his place one another person who was suffering with leprosy had surrendered and bail was obtained in the name of Abdul Rahman. The complainant had filed a petition in that case in that regard. Further allegation was that in order to save him from charges the deceased’s Mama Md .Abdullah poisoned the deceased and hurriedly disposed of the dead body by burying it. The complainant had also alleged that he had gone to the police but his case was not registered, hence, he filed complaint before the learned C.J.M. On the complaint, an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted and, thereafter, cognizance of offence was taken and O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 was - 2 - tried and they have been accordingly acquitted as aforesaid. While recording the order of acquittal, the learned trial judge has considered that including the complainant as many as four witnesses were examined. Out of the witnesses, the complainant Md. Maqbull Ahmad (P.W.4), Kamrool Hoda(PW-1), Hasan Tara(P.W.3) is not the eye-witnesses and they have stated about hearsay matter that they had heard that the deceased was poisoned at the hands of the O.P. Md. Abdullah Only one witness Jafrul Samad (P.W.2) deposed before the trial court that in the night of occurrence he had gone to Bettiah to give churha to his niece who was living there in an orphanage and after giving Churra and while returning he wanted to stay at the house of Md. Abdulah and when he was near his house and washing his hands on a public tap, he saw through the window of Abdullah’s house that Abdullah was administering poison to the deceased with a glass and he also stated to his mother that poison had been administered to the deceased who will die soon. The PW.2 Jafrool further deposed that seeing this he did not go to the house of Abdullah out of fear and he went to railway station for catching train and he informed the complainant that his son-in-law (deceased) had been poisoned to death. It was only evidence as adduced by the P.W.2 Jafrool Samad that the prosecution relied upon in support of the charges. While considering the evidence of the this witness, the learned trial court considered that this witness (P.W.2) has stated that he informed the complainant/petitioner about having seen the occurrence as stated by him but the complainant who was examined as P.W.4 did not say in his - 3 - evidence that the P.W.2 had informed him about the details of occurrence as deposed in Court. The learned trial court also considered that the P.W.1 Kamrool Hoda had deposed that in the night at 9:30 P.M. the O.P. Abdullah had come to his house and had called him to his house and that when he (P.W.1) had gone there he had seen that the mother and wife of the Abdullah and many other ladies of the village were there and they had told him that the deceased had himself taken poison and had committed suicide. The trial court also considered that the P.W.1 stated in his evidence that he learnt from some villagers that Abdullah had administered poison to the deceased but he was unable to disclose the name of the any person from whom he had learnt it. Thus, it was a hearsay matter and it could not be reliable. In view of the evidence as adduced, the trial court considered that the evidence did not inspire confidence and it was not sufficient to base a conviction on the charges against the O. P. Nos. 2 and 4. On careful consideration of the evidence, facts and circumstances, I feel that the learned trial court has taken a justifiable approach and there is nothing to make any interference with the order of acquittal. In such view of the mattes, I find no reason to allow this S.L.A. for leave to appeal and, therefore, it is rejected at the stage of admission. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-