Ramashray Sharma @ Munna Sharma And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.29 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -54 Year- 2002 Thana -RANIYATALAB District- PATNA ======================================================
1. Ramashray Sharma @ Munna Sharma,
2. Sanjeet Kumar @ Rintu Kumar All sons of Gopal Sharma, resident of Village- Kab, P.S.- Ranitalab, District- Patna.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Santosh Kumar, S/o Devadhar Singh,
3. Devadhar Singh @ Devendra Singh, S/o Late Ragunandan Singh,
4. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Devadhar Singh All are resident of Village- Kab, P.S.- Ranitalab, District- Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Atul Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr. Maya Nand Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR) 19-06-2017 Heard Sri Atul Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Maya Nand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by Sri Santoh Kumar Agnihotri, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge -VII, Danapur in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 2003 arising out of Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 54 of 2002.
In the present case besides memo of Appeal an
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.29 of 2017 (7) dt.19-06-2017 2/3 application vide I.A. No. 864 of 2017 was filed under Section 372 read with Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 for grant of leave.
The respondent no. 2 to 4 were charge sheeted for offence under Section 144, 323, 341, 342, , 325, 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, however charges were framed for offence under Section 144, 323, 341, 342, 325, 504, 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. It was alleged that in the occurrence while the prosecution side were in field the accused persons arrived, intercepted and assaulted them. It was alleged that in the occurrence accused persons fired which hit P.W. 5 who received fire arm injury. During trial six witnesses were examined including the Investigating Officer, however charges for offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. or Section 27 of the Arms Act were not proved.
During the trial despite indulgence granted by the learned Trial Court the prosecution did not produce the Medical Officer, who had examined the victim, nor during the trial any injury report was produced.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.29 of 2017 (7) dt.19-06-2017 3/3 of the part of the country made rifle was taken away by the accused and second part was left at the place of occurrence, however nothing was shown regarding recovery of part of the alleged country made rifle. So far offence under Section 341 , 323/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned , the prosecution has proved the case and as such, the accused were convicted for such offences. Considering the fact that there was no criminal antecedent against any of accused persons as well as the fact that one of the accused had remained in custody for one year and two months and other accused persons were also confined for considerable period, the learned Trial Court after convicting released them under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act after due admonition.
We have perused the judgment. After going through the judgment of the Trial Court, the Court is of the opinion that same is not perverse and as such, there is no reason to interfere with the same.
Leave is refused and the Appeal stands dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar, J) (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Praful/- U T