Shankar Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Shankar Sharma vs State of Bihar and ors.

Disposition Revision Dismissed Court Patna Decided Sep 24, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/123280

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/123280
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Someshwar Nath Pathak, J.
Decided On: Sep 24, 2002
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 223 of 1996
Subject: ;Criminal
Disposition: Revision Dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148 and 149--Offence thereunder--Compounding of--Trial Court acquitted the accused person of the case on the basis of the compromises petition as also on the basis of the sole evidence of the informant--Revisionist contended that offence under Sections 147, 148 and 149 were no...

Key legal issue: ;Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision Dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shankar Sharma

Respondent

State of Bihar and ors.

Court's Analysis

Prior History: Someshwar Nath Pathak, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 18.12.1995, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Khagaria in GR case No. 1150 of 1994 Tr. No. 334 of 1995.
2. This revision petition has been filed by one Shankar Sharma who claims to be one of the injured along with the informant of the case Mangan Prasad Sharma, it has been submitted by the revisionist's lawyer that the trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the case on the basis of the compromis

Excerpt

indian penal code, 1860 - sections 147, 148 and 149--offence thereunder--compounding of--trial court acquitted the accused person of the case on the basis of the compromises petition as also on the basis of the sole evidence of the informant--revisionist contended that offence under sections 147, 148 and 149 were not compundable and he had not entered into compromise though an order of acquittal was recorded on the basis of the compromise--since good feelings had prevailed and the informant was reluctant to adduce any further evidence in the case--trial court was not justified in recording the order of acquittal--but now so many years have been passed, if order of acquittal is set aside and trial court is directed to hold re-trial of the accused same would cause unnecessary harassment to the accused--hence, revision dismissed. - - however, the impugned judgment is based also on the sole testimony of the informant, who said that the good feelings had prevailed between the parties and there was no longer any rancour. since good feelings had prevailed, i think the informant was reluctant to adduce any further evidence in the case......the trial court in the impugned judgment. however, the impugned judgment is based also on the sole testimony of the informant, who said that the good feelings had prevailed between the parties and there was no longer any rancour. moreover, the accused persons had come to the place of occurrence not in a body but one by one. ultimately the trial court on the basis of this evidence acquitted all the accused person of the case and an order of acquittal was recorded on the basis of evidence, whatever that it may be and however meagre. it may still be factually an order of acquittal not solely based on the so called compromise, but also on the basis of the want of evidence. since good feelings had prevailed, i think the informant was reluctant to adduce any further evidence in the case. so i think that the trial court was not factually unjustified in recording the order of acquittal. the order of acquittal was recorded in the year 1995 and now so many years have passed. if, therefore, the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court is set aside and the trial court is directed to hold rental of the accused of the case on the basis of the revision filed by one of the injured person, i think this will cause unnecessary harassment to the accused who stand acquitted by the impugned judgment, passed by the trial court.4. i am, therefore, of the opinion that it cannot be just and proper to allow this revision in order to re-open the case before the trial court unnecessarily to the detriment and hardship to the accused-opposite parties. in the result i do not think this court is under any legal obligation to revise the impugned order. this revision is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

Someshwar Nath Pathak, J.

1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 18.12.1995, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Khagaria in GR case No. 1150 of 1994 Tr. No. 334 of 1995.

2. This revision petition has been filed by one Shankar Sharma who claims to be one of the injured along with the informant of the case Mangan Prasad Sharma, it has been submitted by the revisionist's lawyer that the trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the case on the basis of the compromise petition as also on the basis of the sole evidence of the informant. The trial Court also wrongly referred to the sections of the Penal Code in which charge-sheet was submitted by the police and in which cognizance was taken by the CJM. The offences under Sections 147, 148 and 149 were not compoundable. The revisionist had not entered in compromise although an order of acquittal was recorded on the basis of the compromise.

3. Of course there appears to be some technical legal lapses and perhaps some errors of record committed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment. However, the impugned judgment is based also on the sole testimony of the informant, who said that the good feelings had prevailed between the parties and there was no longer any rancour. Moreover, the accused persons had come to the place of occurrence not in a body but one by one. Ultimately the trial Court on the basis of this evidence acquitted all the accused person of the case and an order of acquittal was recorded on the basis of evidence, whatever that it may be and however meagre. It may still be factually an order of acquittal not solely based on the so called compromise, but also on the basis of the want of evidence. Since good feelings had prevailed, I think the informant was reluctant to adduce any further evidence in the case. So I think that the trial Court was not factually unjustified in recording the order of acquittal. The order of acquittal was recorded in the year 1995 and now so many years have passed. If, therefore, the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to hold rental of the accused of the case on the basis of the revision filed by one of the injured person, I think this will cause unnecessary harassment to the accused who stand acquitted by the impugned judgment, passed by the trial Court.

4. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it cannot be just and proper to allow this revision in order to re-open the case before the trial Court unnecessarily to the detriment and hardship to the accused-opposite parties. In the result I do not think this Court is under any legal obligation to revise the impugned order. This revision is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2002 Same Parties Shankar Sharma vs State of Bihar and ors. Same Subject ;Criminal Same Judge Someshwar Nath Pathak, J.

;Criminal