Shivnath Prasad vs State Of Bihar

Shivnath Prasad ....Appellant

Versus

The State of Bihar ....Respondent

JUDGMENT

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Heard

2. Leave granted.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

2 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

.................................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

...............................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi,

3 November 28, 2008

4