Patna Court May 1999 Judgments

Awadh Bihari Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: 1999CriLJ4497

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3.2. This revision application is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 30th November, 1992 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ara (Bhojpur) in Sessions Trial No. 151 of 1986 acquitting the accused opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 of the charges under Sections 307, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in-correct perspective of the case and has arrived at a wrong conclusion holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused persons. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment suffer from inherent infirmities and the same is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 contended that the learned trial Court has taken into consideration both oral as w...

Arun Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tara Kant Jha assisted by Mr. Gautam Bose and the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State.2. The petitioner has impugned that order dated 7.1.98, by reason of which the petitioner's pryaer for discharge has been refused.3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass.According to the prosecution on 7.9.82, Sub-Inspector of Sone Nagar G.R.P.S. filed a complaint stating, inter alia, that on 5.9.82 at about 17.46 hours one Goods train collided with another Goods Train, as a result of which some wagons and engine were damaged and were derailed. It is alleged that the Railways suffered loss of lacs of rupees due to negligence of Ram Krishna Prasad, Rest giver ASM, Headquarters Jakhim, Relieving Switchman, Achuda Nand, Head-quarters, Gaya, Ramashray Singh, the Driver of Crack 4, Head-quarters at Gaya and Controller on duty G.C. Section, Mughalsarai. It was also alleged that the Driver, Assistant Driver and the Gu...

Henry Tirkey Vs. Basu OraIn and ors.

Court: Patna

D.N. Prasad, J.1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant, namely, Henry Tirkey against the judgment and decree, passed by Addl. Subordinate Judge, Ranchi by which the learned Sub-Judge dismissed the suit.2. The short facts, as alleged by the plaintiff/appellant is that the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 are the sons of Bhushan Tirkey, who died in or about the year 1963-64 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 as the only sons who inherited the land belonging to their father Bhushan Tirkey. It is further claimed that there was a family partition of tall, the lands and properties belonging to Bhushan Tirkey in the month of January 1964 and the whole land plot No. 793, area 1.65 acres, being land of Schedule-A fell in the exclusive share of the plaintiff and since the time of partition the plaintiff is coming in exclusive possession of the suit land. The defendant No. 3 has got no title and possession over the said land. It is further claimed that defe...

Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar Singh and ors.

Court: Patna

1. Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. His grievance is that his minor daughter and son/ namely Nidhi Singh @ Romi and Abhisekh @ Honey have been detained by his father-in-law (Respondent No. 1), namely, Vijay Kumar Singh. Kumari Nidhi was born on 10.11.88 while Abhisek was born on 23.4.93. Apparently, both are minors. The claim for their custody is naturally based on the fact that the petitioner being the natural guardian is entitled to the custody of his children. It is not disputed that the wife of the petitioner died of burn injuries on 23.8.94.2. On the other hand, Respondent-Vijay Kumar Singh contends that his daughter died under mysterious circumstnaces and he suspects the complicity of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that no relief should be granted to the petitioner, since the children are safe in the custody.3. Having regard to the controversy before us, we are of the opinion that the matter can be more appropriately dea...

Nagendra Rai Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned Counsel, for opposite party Nos. 2 to 5.2. This revision applciation is directed against the order dated 5.4.1991 passed in Criminal Revision 173/91 by the learned Sessions Jduge, Sitamarhi dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner as not maintainable.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has wholly erred in holding that the second complaint filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the order impugned is without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case where the protest petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-appearance on 12.4.90, the second complaint filed on 19.4.90 was maintainable.4. It appears that the petitioner has lodged first information report on 10.6.1989 against the members of the opposite parties alleging therein, inter alia, that members of the opposite parites ...