IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.95 of 2010 VIMAL DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 20.12.2010 Heard at the stage of admission. This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 4.12.2010 of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai passed in Sessions Trial No.454 of 2007 whereby the O.P. No.2 Pramod Narayan Rai who was put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code has been acquitted of the charges. The petitioner Vimla Devi had filed complaint alleging that her father Dasrath Rai, deceased was living with her and she was getting him treated. She further alleged that her cousin, Pramod Narayan Rai (O.P. No.2) came to her along with his wife Asha Devi and took her father, the deceased with them for getting him treated at native village home. The complainant continued alleging that thereafter, on 11.3.2004, the O.P. No.2 took the deceased to registration office, Begusarai and got a deed of transfer executed by deceased in his (O.P No’s.2) favour with regard to all the lands and household properties of the deceased. It was further alleged that when the complainant learnt about this, she went to deceased native village on 23.7.2005 and asked the O.P. No.2 as to why he got deed of transfer executed but the deceased wife Jaya Devi who was present there chided the complainant asking her to keep quite. Further allegation was that a quarrel ensued in the matter and in course of the quarrel, the O.P. No.2, Pramod Narayan Rai and his wife Jaya Devi both killed the 2 deceased by pressing his neck. The complainant claimed that the witnesses had seen the occurrence. She also alleged that she had gone to the P.S. for lodging a case but her case was not taken there and hence she filed complaint in Court. Learned C.J.M. conducted an enquiry on the complaint and thereafter, cognizance of offence was taken and the O.P. No.2 put on trial. The learned trial court considered that four witnesses namely, P.W.1 Sakaldeo Singh, P.W.2 Rajeev Kumar, P.W.3 Sintu Kumar, and P.W.4 Vimla Devi, the complainant were examined on the point of occurrence. P.W.5 Balmiki Prasad was a formal witness. While considering the evidence of witnesses, the learned trial court found that any independent witness was not examined on the point of the alleged treatment of the deceased nor any documentary evidence was produced in this regard. It was mentioned by the learned trial court that the complainant’s case was that she had kept the deceased with her and she was getting him treated but no paper was produced to show that the deceased was treated of any disease. The learned trial court also considered that the P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that the O.P. No.2 had taken the deceased to his house at Bishunpur for his treatment but the complainant did not say this fact in her evidence rather the P.W.3 stated at para 36 of his evidence that the deceased Dasrath Rai was not ailing before his death and that he had gone to the house of the O.P. No.2 at his own will. In these circumstances, the learned trial court rightly disbelieved this part of the prosecution story that the O.P. No.2 had taken the deceased with him for the purpose of his treatment. 3 The learned trial court also considered that the complainant proved exhibit 3 which was a sale deed dated 3.9.2003 showing sale of two bighas, ten kathas, ten dhurs and 12 dhurki of lands by the deceased Dasrath Rai in favour of the O.P. No.2 and there is nothing like sale of house property as alleged by the complainant. The learned trial court has further considered at para 13 of its judgment that the complainant had deposed at para 32 of her evidence that when she had gone to deceased’s native village and had asked him about the transfer of the land, the deceased had voluntarily disclosed that he had transferred the land in favour of the O.P. No.2. The complainant also deposed in para 32 of her evidence that when she learnt about the transfer of land she contacted her husband and lawyer and then on deliberation it was thought that in order to get the land back, a case should be instituted and that for this purpose she filed complainant. The leaned trial court has rightly entertained on suspicion over the prosecution story in view of the facts that the case was instituted more for the purpose of getting land back them for a prosecution of the O.Ps for any other offence. As to the commission of the offence alleged at the hands of the O.P. No.2, the learned trial court considered that P.W.1 Sakaldeo Singh claimed to be an eye-witness of the occurrence of murder committed by O.P. No.2. In para 44 of his evidence, he stated that he could not get any knowledge about the death of the deceased. In such view of the matters, he was rightly disbelieved as a competent witness of the case. Regarding witness P.W.3 Sintu Singh who also claimed to be an eye-witness, the learned trial court considered that in para 36 of 4 his evidence this witness simply stated that the death of the deceased had occurred and thus he did not appear to be a competent eye-witness. The learned trial court further considered that the complainant claimed that she had gone to P.S. for lodging a case but her case was not taken, hence she filed complaint. In this context, the learned trial court considered the evidence of P.W.1. At para 6 and P.W.2 at para 5 that a written petition was filed at the P.S. and that P.W.3 at para 22 stated that a case was registered at the P.S. The complainant (P.W.4) also stated at para 24 that she had given information of the occurrence at the P.S. On the basis of these evidence, it appeared that the case was lodged at the P.S. but that fact was suppressed while filing the complaint petition and the application which was filed at the P.S. at the earliest mentioning about the details of the occurrence was not brought on record. This aspect rightly creates a doubt about the credibility of the prosecution story. In view of the infirmities as discussed above in the prosecution case, the learned trial court found that prosecution case was full of doubts and the charges were not proved beyond doubt, hence, the accused were acquitted. On considering as above, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court. In such view of the matters, I find no merit in this application and it is dismissed at the stage of admission. (C. M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-