Patna High CourtCR. REV./766/2014dismissed

Binod Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-12Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.766 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- PATNA ===========================================================

1. Binod Paswan Son of Late Ram Chela Paswan resident of village- Laxmanpur Bathe, P.O.- Kamta, P.S.- Parsi, District- Arwal. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar Shrivastava For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH JUDGMENT AND ORDER ORAL Date: 12.01.2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. This criminal revision application has been filed against the order, dated 04.04.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge XI, Patna, in Criminal Misc. No. 17 of 2014, whereby he has held the petitioner entitled for compensation of a sum of Rs. 13,80,000/- on the death of his mother, brothers and sisters in a carnage, which had taken place in the year 1997, against his claim of a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/-.

3. The persons put on trial in the case arising out of the said carnage were finally acquitted by the judgment and

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.766 of 2014 dt.12-01-2017 2/2 order, dated 09.10.2013, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in Death Reference No. 05 of 2010 and other criminal appeals, arising out of the same trial. However, while acquitting the persons who were convicted of the charge by the learned Trial Court, the Division Bench had directed payment of compensation to the next kin of the victims by applying the principle underlying the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In pursuance of the said order, the impugned order has been passed.

4. Though, it is the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for more amount as compensation than what has been awarded, there is no ground taken on which basis the petitioner could substantiate his claim.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any error, legal or factual, requiring this Court's interference.

6. This application has no merit, which is accordingly dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 14.01.2017 Transmission Date 14.01.2017