[2008] 16 $.C.R. 766
I
A
SHIVNATH PRASAD
+- -
II.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1892 of 2008)
B
NOVEMBER 28, 2008
[DR·. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.279 and 304A - Conviction under
c - Revision petition filed by accused - Dismissed by High
Court by a cryptic order - On appeal, held:· High Court did
not notice various submissions made by the accused - Matter
remitted to High Court for consideration afresh.
D
The appellant was convicted by the trial court and the
appellate Court under ss.274 and 304A IPC. The revision
petition filed by appellant was dismissed by the High
court on the ground that there was no scope for
...
interference.
~
E
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the
appellant that while dismissing the revision petition, the
High Court did not notice several infirmities in the
prosecution version i.e. the 1.0., the doctor and the
informant were not examined; the postmortem report was
F not exhibited; the trial court and the appellate court relied
upon the_ evidence of PW-3, who was not the informant
')._
and was not even named as an eye-witness; and out of
the five eye-witnesses, three did not support the
prosecution version while one eye-witness was not
G examined during investigation.
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
..,
the High Court, the Court
"
j
H
766
SHIVNATH PRASAD v. STATE OF BIHAR
767
..; )
HELD: The High Court, by a cryptic order, dismissed
A
the revision petition, without noticing the various
submissions made by the appellant. In the
circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court is
set aside. [Para 7] [768-E-F]
8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
;
No. 1892 of 2008.
(
-
-'f
From the Judgment and final Order dated 30.6.2008 of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Revision No. 572. of
2008.
c
Manish Kumar Saran and Nirmal Kumar Ambastha for the
Appellant.
Gopal Singh and Shweta Kumari Singh for the
0
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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:
E
F
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 G
imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. Both
the sentences were directed to run concurrently. An appeal was
filed and the leaned Add!tional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No. II, 13ettiah, West Champaran affirmed the.
H
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A 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
B prosecution version has not been established. There were
several infirmities which the High Court unfortunately did not
notice. The 1.0., the Doctor and the informant were not
,,
examined. The post-mortem report was also not exhibited. PW-
1'
3, who claimed to be the son of the deceased was not the
c informant. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court relied
upon his evidence. Significantly, he was al~ 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
D
support the prosecution version.
6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, all these
factors have not been considered by the High Court. Learned
4..
counsel for the respondent-State supported the impugned
~
order of the High Court.
E
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
F accordance with law.
)..
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
8.8.B~
Appeal disposed of.
Lex