BHRIGUNATH SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant -appellant Bhrigunath Singh Yadav has preferred this acquittal appeal against the judgment dated 03.01.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in C.P. Case no. 35 of 1986/T.R. No. 01 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the court below having found the respondent nos. 2 to 7 not guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code acquitted them from the charges.

(2.) THE case of the appellant, as projected in the complaint case, in short, is that on 12.10.1986, the appellant was sitting in his quarter when an unknown person came and informed that one Brahmdeo Yadav working with C.I.S.F., B.S.L. is ill and has immediately called him. He immediately rushed to meet the said Brahmdeo Singh and when arrived at a road crossing between B.S.L. Administrative Building and H.S.C.L., the accused persons, who are respondent nos. 2 to 7, armed with deadly weapon like dagger, rod and lathi assaulted him. Hearing the alarm raised by the appellant, several passersby came and saved the complainant from the accused persons but in the meantime, one of the accused Shivnath Yadav took out Rs. 250/ - from his pocket and Ram Janam Yadav snatched his chadar and towel and fled away. The motive behind the assault as alleged in the complaint petition was previous enmity. On such accusation, the complaint case was filed and after taking cognizance, the case was transferred under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. for enquiry and disposal. Thereafter, the charge was framed under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons namely Sheonath Upadhya, Ram Shikil Yadav, Pramod Yadav, Radha Yadav and Parikha Yadav and the charge against Ram Janam Yadav was framed under Sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The defence of the respondent nos. 2 to 7 were complete denial of the allegation and they also claimed to be falsely implicated in this case due to the previous enmity.

(3.) DURING trial, the appellant examined himself as P.W.5, Dilip Kumar Bhatak as P.W.1, Rajdeo Yadav as P.W.2, Ram Pratap Yadav as P.W.3, Jagannath Prasad Singh as P.W. 4 and Dr.T.P.Singh, who had examined the injuries of the appellant as P.W. 6. P.W.2 and P.W. 3 were though examined before framing of charge but they did not come forward after charge for their cross -examination. It further appears from the record that P.W.1, P.W. 4 and P.W.5 had been examined twice as the trial for accused Radha Yadav and Ram Janam Yadav were separated from other accused persons. The Court after considering the evidence and materials on record, recorded the order of acquittal as stated above. Being aggrieved with that, this appeal has been filed.