Shivnath Prasad Vs.
State of Bihar [2008] INSC 2040 (28 November 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 (Arising
out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6016 of 2008) Shivnath Prasad ....Appellant Versus The
State of Bihar ....Respondent
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Heard
2. Leave granted.
2.
Challenge
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.
3.
Background
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 imprisonment for
six months and one year respectively.
Both the sentences
were directed to run concurrently. An appeal was filed and the leaned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Bettiah, West
Champaran affirmed the conviction and sentence. The revision filed was
dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that there was no scope for
interference.
4.
Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution version has not been
established. There were several infirmities which the High Court unfortunately
did not notice. The I.O., 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 informant. The Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court relied upon his evidence. Significantly, he was also 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.
5.
According
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.
6.
We
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.
7.
The
appeal is accordingly disposed of.
.................................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
...............................................J
Back
Pages: 1 2
