Shivnath Prasad v. the State of Bihar

Judgment

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1892 of 2008. From the Judgment and final Order dated 30.6.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Revision No. 572. of 2008. Manish Kumar Saran and Nirmal Kumar Ambastha for the Appellant. Gopal Singh and Shweta Kumari Singh for the 0 Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1Heard

2Leave granted.

3Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant.

4Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The appellant was convicted for offences.punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the iPC') by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran. He was sentenced to undergo simple G imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. An appeal was filed and the leaned Add!tional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, 13ettiah, West Champaran affirmed the. A conviction and sentence. The revision filed was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that there was no scope for interference.

5Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the B prosecution version has not been established. There were several infirmities which the High Court unfortunately did not notice. The 1.0., the Doctor and the informant were not examined. The post-mortem report was also not exhibited. PW- 3, who claimed to be the son of the deceased was not the c informant. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court relied upon his evidence. Significantly, he was al~ not named as an eye witness in the FIR. PW-4 claimed to· be an eye-witness. But, he was not examined during investigation. Out of the five witnesses, who were stated to be eye~witnesses, three did not support the prosecution version.

6According to learned counsel for the appellant, all these factors have not been considered by the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the impugned order of the High Court.

7We find that the High Court has, by a cryptic order, dismissed the revision petition. It has not noticed the various submissions made by the appellant, as noticed above. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

8The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 8.8.B~ Appeal disposed of.