Skip to content


Shivnath Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 1892 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6016 of 2008)
Judge
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A
AppellantShivnath Prasad
RespondentThe State of Bihar
Appellant Advocate Manish Kumar Saran and; Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Advs
Respondent Advocate Gopal Singh and ; Shweta Kumari Singh, Advs.
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and final Order dated 30.6.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Revision No. 572 of 2008
Excerpt:
- indian electricity act, 1910 section 9-a: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph , jj ] theft of electricity - offence by company -vicarious liability - prosecution of directors of company - held, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant not only to make requisite averments in the complaint petition but also to prove that any of the directors who had been prosecuted for alleged commission of the aforementioned offence was in charge of and was otherwise responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company. as the complainant /electricity board failed to prove this fact, conviction was set aside .....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 prosecution version has not been established. there were several infirmities which the high court unfortunately did not notice. the i.o., the doctor and the informant were not examined. the post-mortem report was also not exhibited. pw-3, who claimed to be the son of the deceased was not the informant. the trial court and the first appellate court relied upon his evidence. significantly, he was also 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 support the prosecution version.6......
Judgment:

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:

The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. An appeal was filed and the leaned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Bettiah, West Champaran affirmed the 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 prosecution version has not been established. There were several infirmities which the High Court unfortunately did not notice. The I.O., the Doctor and the informant were not examined. The post-mortem report was also not exhibited. PW-3, who claimed to be the son of the deceased was not the informant. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court relied upon his evidence. Significantly, he was also 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 support the prosecution version.

6. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, all these factors have not been considered by the High Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State supported the impugned order of the High Court.

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 accordance with law.

8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //