Cr. Rev.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA .
( CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2014.
In the matter of an application under
Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Dhrupdev Mishra, son of Late Bhawani Mishra
Resident of village- Bishunpura, P.O. Jagdishpur , P.S. Nautan , District –
Siwan.
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1.The State of Bihar.
2. Balram Mishra , son of Late Bhawani Mishra,
3. Pappu Mishra,
4. Rameshwar Mishra,
5. Manu Mishra ,
All sons of Balram Mishra,

All residents of village- Bishunpura, P.O.
Jagdishpur , P.S. Nautan , District – Siwan.
….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon'ble
Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Her
Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble High Court.
The humble petition on behalf of
the petitioner above named;
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-
1. That, this revision application is directed against the
judgment and order dated 8th July, 2014 passed by Sri Abhishek Ranjan ,
the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Siwan in Trial No.6536 of 2014
arising out of G.R.No.1644 of 2013 , whereby and where under the learned
trial court had convicted the accused persons (Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 )
guilty for offences under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
considering their clean antecedent , benefit of Section -3 of the Probation of
Offenders Act was granted to the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved either before the learned
Sessions Judge , Siwan or before this Hon’ble Court against the
impugned order dated 08.07.2014.
3. That, Nautan P.S. Case No.60 of 2003 dated 04.10.2003 was
submitted on the basis of Fardbeyan of the informant Dhurpdev

Mishra ,petitioner herein, recorded by Sri K. Chaudhary , Sub-Inspector of
Police , Mairwa Police- Station on 01.10.2003 at Primary Health Centre,
Mairwa.
A true photo stat/ typed copy of the F.I.R. of
Nautan P.S. Case No.60 of 2003 dated 04.10.2003
is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-
“1” for identification forming part of this petition.
4. That, according to the Fardbeyan ,the prosecution case, in short
interalia is that on 01.10.2003 at about 8 A.M. while his daughter Pushpa
Mishra was taking her son to attend the call of nature his agnates
Rameshwar Mishra , Pappu Mishra and Manu Mishra all sons of Balram
Mishra came there and stated abusive language .
It was the further case of the informant that when they were
asked for not asking the abusive language , Rameshwar Mishra assaulted by
fists and slaps and had snatched the golden chain and nose pin.
On alarm by his daughter Pushpa , the informant rushed there
when Balram Mishra assaulted on his shoulder by Lathi ( hard and blunt
substance ) . At the same time Rameshwar Mishra reached there with
Farsa and assaulted on the informant’s head as a result of which blood was
oozing from the head injuries and thereafter Pappu Mishra and Manu
Mishra again assaulted him by hard and blunt substance.
It was a further case of the petitioner that on alarm , his son
Dwijendra Mishra rushed there when he was also assaulted by hard and
blunt substance and when the villagers reached there and intervened ,the
matter could be pacified.
5. That, since the petitioner had sustained grievous head injury
and his treatment was not possible at Primary Health Centre , Mairwa , he
was referred for better treatment to Kanpur Medical College and Hospital
by the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Mairwa on
01.10.2013 itself . The Mairwa Police- Station was accordingly informed
by the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre , Mairwa vide letter
dated 01.10.2013.
A true typed copy of the letter of Incharge
Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre , Mairwa
dated 01.10.2013 is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE- “2” to this petition.
6. That, after institution of the case , the police proceeded with
investigation but since it was found that they are helping the accused
persons ,therefore, a protest petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner
against the police investigation.
7. That, before the police could have completed the investigation
and submitted charge-sheet , the injury report from G.S.B.M Medical
College, Kanpur was issued and when it was received by the Incharge
Medical Officer , Mairwa Primary Health Centre , on 01.02.2004 , he
changed his earlier opinion regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner . It is stated that earlier ,in the opinion of the Incharge Medical
Officer of Mairwa Primary Health Centre ,the nature of injuries sustained
by the petitioner was opined to be simple in nature but on receipt of the
opinion of the doctor of the Medical College, the Incharge Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre Mairwa had changed his opinion and informed
Nautan Police on 01.02.2004 that the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner is grievous in nature.
A true typed copy of the injury report dated
01.02.2004 is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE- “3” to this petition.
8. That, notwithstanding the injury report that the petitioner had
sustained grievous injury on his head , Nautan Police submitted Charge-
Sheet No.71 of 2004 dated 19.02.2004 for the offences under Sections
341, 323, 447, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code . It is relevant to state
that the Incharge Medical Officer had already issued supplementary injury
report on 01.02.2004 itself.
A true photo stat copy of the Charge-Sheet No.71
of 2004 dated 19.02.2004 is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE- “4” to this petition.
9. That, after submission of charge-sheet under the aforesaid
Sections though the petitioner’s protest was available on record but without
any notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of
hearing ,the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,Siwan took cognizance for
the offences under Sections 341, 323, 447, 504 /34 of the Indian Penal Code
vide order dated 21.02.2004.
A true typed copy of the cognizance order dated
10. That, at the time of cognizance even the learned Assistant
Prosecution Officer did not inform the court that the materials are
available on record that the accused persons have committed offences
under Sections 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. That, since the petitioner and his other family members were
residing at Kanpur and ,therefore, they had no detail information about the
events of the case since they had faith that the Assistant Prosecution Officer
would take care of the case.
12. That, after cognizance the case was transferred to the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan for trial , charges were framed
and trial proceeded.
13. That, though the petitioner was the informant of the case but
no summon was served upon him to appear and depose as a witness on
behalf of the prosecution.
14. That, P.W.2 Dwijendra Mishra was examined as P.W.2 .In his
deposition ,he had categorically stated that his father was assaulted by
Balram Mishra on his shoulder with stick and Rameshwar Mishra assaulted
his father on head with axe. Pappu and Manu assaulted his father by stick
and he was also assaulted by stick by the accused persons.
15. That, P.W.3 Mohan Mishra and P.W.4 Yugal Mishra had also
supported the prosecution case but very conveniently neither any summon
was issued to the Investigating Officer nor the Medical Officer ,who had
treated the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him and had issued the
injury report.
16. That, even the injury report was not marked as Exhibit in this
case nor the First Information Report .
17. That, therefore, the trial was conducted by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class in most perfunctory manner and it appears that since
the Assistant Prosecution Officer had also gone in collusion of the accused
persons , he did not assist the court properly in the matter.
18. That, since the relevant documents like the injury report ,
which would have corroborated the allegation of assault upon the
petitioner on his head by axe was not brought on record as exhibit nor the
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to depose in the case and bring
those material on record by the impugned judgment and order ,the learned
Judicial Magistrate found the case true only for the offence under Section
323 of the Indian Penal Code ,they were convicted accordingly and they
were granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act .
19. That, it is stated that being an old man , the petitioner even
without summons appeared before the court for his evidence but for one
reason or the other his evidence could not be recorded and the prosecution
evidence was closed though the petitioner was main witness of the case.
20. That, it is further stated that on behalf of the accused persons
there was a counter case in respect of same occurrence but trial thereof is
still pending .
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order dated 8th July, 2014 passed
by Sri Abhishek Ranjan , the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan in Trial No.6536 of
2014 arising out of G.R.No.1644 of 2013 , the
above named petitioner begs to prefer this
revision application on amongst the other
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned judgment and order dated 08.07.2014
is bad in law as well as on facts .
II. For that, the trial was conducted by the learned trial court
in most perfunctory manner and no opportunity was granted to the
prosecution to examine the relevant witnesses including the
petitioner ,who had sustained injury in the said occurrence.
III. For that, though there was allegation of causing injury on head
by axe but neither the learned trial court nor the Assistant Prosecution
Officer thought it proper to call for the injury report and get it exhibited .
Even the Fardbeyan was not exhibited in this case only because the
Assistant Prosecution Officer had gone in connivance of the accused persons
and he was not discharging his functions as the Prosecution Officer.
IV. For that , though it is a police case but neither the learned trial
court nor the Assistant Prosecution Officer had taken any steps for
examination of Investigating Officer and doctor in order to help the accused
persons.
V. For that, there was a case and counter case in respect of same
offence, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure required them to
be tried simultaneously but in this case, the counter case is still pending
against the petitioners and others whereas the petitioner’s case has been
disposed of under the impugned judgment and order.
VI. For that, the impugned judgment and order suffers from
perversity and ,therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
VUI. For that , the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law and is fit to be set aside.
It is ,therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordships may
graciously be pleased to admit this revision application, call
for the records of the learned trial court and issue notice to the
opposite-party nos.2 to 5 and after hearing the parties be
further pleased to set aside the judgment and order dated 8 th
July, 2014 passed by Sri Abhishek Ranjan , the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan in Trial No.6536 of 2014
arising out of G.R.No.1644 of 2013 .
A N D/ OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
And for this ,the petitioner shall ever pray.
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2014.
AND
In the matter of :-
Shiv Ratan Mishra ,son of Late Mahendra Mishra,
Resident of village – Yadupatti , P.S. Pupri ,District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Ganesh Mishra , son of Late Parshuram Mishra ,
Resident of village – Yadupatti , P.S. Pupri ,District – Sitamarhi.
…… ………….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
1. That, this revision application is directed against the order
dated 23.05.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.106 of 2006 by Sri P.N.
Singh , the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi , whereby
and where under the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge was
pleased to reject the petition filed on behalf of the defense to mark Exhibit
the Pupri P.S. Non- F.I.R. No.01 of 1995 .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble Court
against the impugned order dated 23.05.2014.
3. That, it is stated that the informant Ganesh Mishra filed a
complaint petition in the court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi which was registered as Complaint Case
NO.219 of 1995 alleging therein that he is residing at Noida whereas his
brother Uma Shankar Mishra is pulling rickshaw in Rewari ( Hariyana ) .
His brother Uma Shankar Mishra received an information on telephone by
unknown person that his father died then his brother met with him on
08.09.1995 at Noida and asked about the information of father of his death.
The informant further alleged that on such information he and
his father proceeded to his village – Yadupatti and when he and his father
reached at the house till the dead body of father was cremated .
-3-
The informant further alleged that he could gent knowledge
that on 27.08.1995 at about 10 A.M. in the day , Upendra Mishra ,
Mahendra Mishra , Yogendra Mishra , Ram Babu Mishra , Uday Mishra ,
Manoj Mishra , Shiv Ratan Mishra , Hari Shankar Chaudhary and Raj
Kumar Manjhi came to his door having armed with Lathi Danda and
started to damage the house upon which his father Parshuram Mishra
restrained them and asked that why they are doing such type of injustice
work upon which Upendra Mishra assaulted his father Parshuram Mishra
as a result of which he fell down thereafter Mahendra Mishra assaulted on
the chest of his father by foot and other accused persons also assaulted his
father .
The informant further alleged that the witnesses namely
Birendra Mahseth , Baijnath Manjhi , Rajesh Kumar , Ram Lala Mishra ,
Sunita Devi forbade them to not do so then they left to assault his father .
The informant further alleged that on the same night at about
12.00 in the night his father died duet to injury received by him on the whole
body.
The informant further alleged that the accused persons asked
his sister namely Sunita Devi , if she asked about the said incidence to any
one then she will be killed ,therefore, his sister kept mum due to fear .
-4-
The informant further alleged that the accused persons
cremated his father Parshuram Mishra in the earth due to conceal the
evidence.
The informant further alleged that accused Raj Kumar Manjhi
had opened a shop of tea and sweets forcibly at the land of the petitioner
and on asking ,he said that Upendra Mishra had provided the land to him for
opening the shop .
The informant further alleged that the land bearing Khata
N.329 , Khesra No.5594 measuring an area 12 Decimals belonging in the
Khatiyan in the name of Deo Narayan Mishra and Parshuram Mishra.
4. That, the aforesaid complaint filed by the informant was
registered as Complaint Case No.219 of 1995 and the same was sent to the
concerned Police –Station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for institution of the First Information Report and investigation of
the case.
5. That, after receipt of complaint , Pupri Police drew up a formal
First Information Report and registered a case being Pupri P.S. Case
NO.148 of 1995 dated 20.12.1995 attributing offences under Section
147,148, 323, 302 , 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code .
A true photo stat copy of the F.I.R. of
Pupri P.S. Case No.148 of 1995 dated
20.12.1995 is annexed herewith and
-5-
marked as ANNEXURE- “1” to this
petition.
6. That, it is relevant to mention here that much prior to the
aforesaid occurrence , the co-accused Ram Babu Mishra filed a petition
before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi on 18.01.1995
against Sri Malwar Mishra , Ajay Kumar Mishra , Samir Kumar Mishra ,
Sudhir Kumar Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Mishra stating therein that on
16.01.1995 , at about 4 O’clock , his villager Malwar Mishra and his
sons came at the Khalihan and asked that he ( Ram Babu Mishra ) made a
witness in the case of Umesh Mishra ,they will kill him and also to
implicate him after dying of Parshuram Mishra ,in Murder case . Thereafter
sons of Malwar Mishra abused and started to assault him and in the mean
time his villager- Uday Mishra , Shiv Ratan Mishra , Ramashish Mishra and
others came there as a result of which his life could be saved. It appears
that after killing Parshuram Mishra ,Malwar Mishra will implicate him and
his family members in a murder case . For the said incidence , he had
already submitted an application in Yadupatti Shivir which was registered
in Station Diary being NO.208 dated 18.01.1992 for which an enquiry was
made .
7. That, the aforesaid complaint filed by Ram Babu Mishra was
registered as Pupri P.S. Non- F.I.R. No.01 of 1995 under Section 107 of
the Indian Penal Code .
-6-
A true photo stat/ typed copy of the
Pupri P.S. Non- F.I.R. No.01 of 1995
is annexed herewith and marked as
8. That, from perusal of ANNEXURE- “2” ,it is apparently clear
that Malwar Mishra had asked to Ram Babu Mishra after dying of
Parshuram Mishra , he will implicate him and his entire family members in
murder case of Parshuram Mishra ,therefore, the said document is necessary
to mark Exhibit in the present case for proper adjudication of the case to
show the innocence of the accused persons of Pupri P.S. Case No.148 of
1995.
9. That, it is stated that after institution of the First Information
Report bearing Pupri P.S. Case No.148 of 1995 ,the police submitted
charge-sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken by the learned
Magistrate.
10. That, thereafter charges were framed ,case was committed to
the court of Sessions and trial has been commenced.
11. That, it is stated that on behalf of the defence a petition was
filed before the learned trial court on 23.05.2014 along with certified copy
of paper of Pupri P.S. Non- F.I.R. NO.01 /95 for marking Exhibit or to call
for the original record from the court of Sub-Divisional Officer , Pupri for
Exhibit.
-7-
A true photo stat copy of the petition
dated 23.05.2014 is annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE- “3” to
this petition.
12. That, it is relevant to state here that the petition dated
18.01.1995 filed by Ram Babu Mishra to the Out Post Incharge ,Yadupatti
upon which Sanha Entry No.208 was lodged ,had already been marked as
Ext. C in the instant case on the request of the defence but due to mistake at
that relevant time the copy of Non- F.I.R. No.01 of 1995 was not produced
by the defence to mark it as Exhibit.
13. That, it is stated that the said document i.e. Non- F.I.R. No.01
of 1995 most essential and important document for proper adjudication of
the case as also to come out the end of justice .
14. That, it is that the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge did
not take into consideration this vital document to mark as exhibit for proper
adjudication of the case in the interest of justice and dismissed the petition
filed by the defense by the impugned order merely on the ground that the
defense has filed the instant petition only to linger in disposal of the case.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order
dated 23.05.2014 passed in Sessions Trial
No.106 of 2006 by Sri P.N. Singh , the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi ,
-8-
the above named petitioner begs to prefer this
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge is bad in law as well as on facts .
II. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that in the Non- F.I.R.
No.01 of 1995 filed by Ram Babu Mishra ,it is categorically mentioned that
Malwar Mishra asked that after dying of Parshuram Mishra , he will
implicate him and his family members in murder case of Parshuram
Mishra ,therefore, the marking of the said document as Exhibit is necessary
for proper adjudication of the case .
III. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that due to mistake
earlier , the said document was not pressed by the defence for marking it as
Exhibit.
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that if any document is
important for proper adjudication of the case , at any stage prior to judgment
of the case ,it could be marked as Exhibit.
V. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that non-marking of the

-9-
Pupri P.S. Non- F.I.R. No.01 of 1995 is injustice with the defence since it
is most important document to come out the final conclusion of the trial.
VI. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
graciously be pleased to admit this revision application, call
for the records and issue notice to the opposite-party no.2 and
after hearing the parties be further pleased to set aside the
order dated 23.05.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.106 of
2006 by Sri P.N. Singh , the learned 1 st Additional Sessions
Judge , Sitamarhi.
A N D/ OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit
A ND
During the pendency of this application ,the further
proceeding of Sessions Trial No.106 of 2006 pending in the
court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi
may kindly be stayed.

I.A. NO.________________________/ OF 2014.
IN
Cr. Rev. No.__499_______________/OF 2008.
In the matter of an application for
early hearing ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Subhash Singh ….………………………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar …………………..………OPPOSITE-PARTY.
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon’ble
Lordship Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble High Court.
-2-
1. That, this interlocutory application is being filed on behalf of
the petitioner above named for early hearing of Cr. Rev. No.499 of 2008
because the petitioner is an employee of Railway Work Shop , Jamalpur as
Crain Driver , Grade-III bearing his Ticket No.267.
2. That, the petitioner appeared in the departmental examination
of Trade Enquiry for the post of Technician Grade-II ( Crain Driver ) and
he has been selected for promotion to the post of Technical Grade-II
( Crain Driver ) in the year 2001 itself but after being declared successful
neither the petitioner is holding the promoted post nor he is getting
enhanced pay-scale consequently ,the petitioner is facing irreparable
monetary loss as well as his designation also because of judgment and
order dated 02.09.2013 passed by Sri N.K. Tripathy ,the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class , Munger in G.R. No.297 of 1999 , Trial No.192 of
2003 by which the petitioner was convicted under Section 323 and 341 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to giving them the benefit of under
Section 3 of Probation of Offender Act of due admonition .
3. That, though the Officers of the Railway Works Shop,
Jamalpur while considering the representation of the petitioner for
promotion then he asked to declare the probation period ,if any passed by the
court of law ,herein , the case of the petitioner , the petitioner filed aforesaid
criminal revision for setting aside the order of the learned trial court as well
as the appellate court . In such a situation ,it will be better for the petitioner
-3-
to get the aforesaid revision case be disposed of as early as possible for
which the petitioner filed the present interlocutory application for early
hearing of the case.
A true photo stat copy of the letter
this interlocutory application.
4. That, though the present case is not a case of moral turpitude or
any heinous crime ,so that the petitioner is being deprived for his due
promotion for which he has been declared successful.
5. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the present
one earlier before this Hon'ble Court.

It is ,therefore, most humbly prayed that your
Lordships may graciously be pleased to hear Cr.
Rev. No.499 of 2008 as early as possible .
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
( CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION)
I.A. NO.________________________/ OF 2014.(Limitation )
IN
S.L.A. NO._________________/OF 2014.
Section 5 of Limitation Act;
AND
In the matter of :-
Sitaram Prasad Sah….………………………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and others…………………RESPONDENTS.
To,
-2-
the petitioner above named for condonation of delay in filing of the instant
Special Leave Application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
present on earlier before this Hon'ble Court.
3. That, it is stated that the petitioner had filed the instant
Special Leave Application against the judgment and order dated
20.09.2013 passed by Sri Md. Habibullah , the learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi in G. R. No.388 of 2007 / Trial
No.234 of 2013 , whereby and where under the learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate was pleased to acquit the Respondent nos. 2 to 6 ,who
were charged for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 504, 354 of the
Indian Penal Code.

4. That, it is stated that the petitioner is a very poor and illiterate
persons and he does not know about any legal impediment .
5. That, it is stated that apart from the learned Public
Prosecutor ,the petitioner had also engaged a lawyer before the learned
trial court and the petitioner is under the impression that the learned
counsel engaged by him would inform about the judgment of the case but
the learned counsel did not inform about the order passed by the learned
trial court.
6. That, it is stated that in the second week of first week of
March, 2014 when the petitioner heard a rumour that the accused persons
-3-
of the case has been acquitted by the learned trial court then the petitioner
immediately contacted the said Advocate of the learned trial court then he
asked the petitioner about the said judgment and order .
7. That, it is stated that thereafter the petitioner immediately
came at Patna and contacted the learned counsel and the instant petition is
being filed.
8. That, though there is no deliberate latches on the part of the
petitioner .
9. That, if the delay in filing of the revision application is not
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
cannot be sustained in other way.

Lordships may graciously be pleased to condone
the delay in filing the present criminal revision
application .
AND/OR

S.L.A NO.__________________/OF 2014 .

Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure;
AND
In the matter of:-
Sitaram Prasad Sah, son of Late Raghubar Sah,
Resident of village- Kabahi Darbar, P.S. Kabahi , District – Bara (Nepal) ,
presently residing at village- Banauli , P.S. Sursand ,District – Sitamarhi.
………………… PETITIONER .
VERSUS
2. Ram Pravesh Thakur,
3. Ram Prakash Thakur,
4. Ramesh Thakur ,
5. Suresh Thakur,
All sons of Rajendra Thakur,
6. Rajendra Thakur ,son of Ram Naresh Thakur,
All resident of village- Purbari Tola , P.S. Sursand , District –
Sitamarhi.
…………………….………RESPONDENTS.
To,
the appellant above named;
1. That, this Special Leave Application on behalf of the
petitioner above named is directed against the judgment and order dated
20.09.2013 passed by Sri Md. Habibullah , the learned Sub- Divisional

Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi in G. R. No.388 of 2007 / Trial
No.234 of 2013 , whereby and where under the learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate was pleased to acquit the Respondent nos. 2 to 6 ,who
were charged for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 504, 354 of the
Indian Penal Code .
earlier against the impugned Judgment and order.
-3-
3. That, prosecution case as spelt out in the complaint petition
in brief is that the brother-in-law of informant namely Sitaram Sah son of
Parmeshwar Dayal Sah at the time of occurrence he was behind the jail in
connection with Sursand P.S. Case No.05 of 2007 and on 01.03.2002 ,he
had got the sale-deed with respect to land of Khata No.101 , Khesra
No.425 , measuring an area ½ decimal from one Yogendra Sah and also
took the possession of the said land .
The informant –petitioner further said that on 05.08.2007
Sunday at 7 P.M. he received information by his Bhagina namely Raja Sah
that the accused persons (Respondent nos. 2 to 5 ) and others are carrying
glass and iron from the hut situated in the said land as also putting a
Gumati after removing the hut .
The informant –petitioner further said that on such informant
he , his sister Siya Devi and villager witness Habib Rain had got to the
place of occurrence and asked them to not do so upon which all the accused
persons became angry and started to abuse in filthy language .
The informant further said that on his protest on the order of
accused Ram Pravesh Thakur ,all the accused persons abused his sister in
filthy language as also assaulted her . The accused Ram Pravesh Thakur
naked his sister by pulling Saree as also snatched ear ring.
4. That, the aforesaid complaint filed by the petitioner was
registered as Complaint Case No.257 of 2007 and the same was sent to
-4-
the concerned Police Station by the court under Section 156(3) Code of
Criminal Procedure for institution of the First Information Report and
further investigation of the case.
5. That, accordingly after receipt of the complaint , Sursand Police
drew up a formal First Information Report and registered a case being
Sursand P.S. Case No.117 of 2007.
6. That, after institution of the First Information Report ,the
police proceeded with the investigation and after completion of
investigation ,the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the
accused persons under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. That, after submission of charge- sheet ,the learned Magistrate
took cognizance against the accused persons i.e. Respondent nos. 2 to 6
under Sections 147,323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code .

8. That, it is stated that after order taking cognizance , the case
was sent for trial and on the basis of evidence Section 354 of the Indian
Penal Code was added.
9. That, it is stated that on behalf of the prosecution altogether 6
witnesses were examined such as :-
P.W.1 : Raja Sahu ( eye witness),
P.W.2 : Md. Habib Rain
P.W.3 : Kanhai Thakur
P.W.4 : Sitaram Sah
-5-
P.W.5 : Siya Devi ( victim and injured )
P.W.6 : Sitaram Prasad Sah ( informant and eye witness ).
10. That, it is stated that apart from the oral evidence one
documentary evidence was exhibited such as signature of informant
(petitioner ) on complaint as Ext. 1.
11. That, it is stated that on behalf of defense only one witness was
examined such as Ram Kailash Rai.
12. That, apart from the oral witness on behalf of defense some
documentary evidence were exhibited such as Sale –Deed No.2464 an 2465
as Ext. A and A/1 and Receipt No.145369.
13. That, it is stated that all the witnesses including the independent
witness P.W2 Habib Rain have fully supported the prosecution version as
spelt out in the complaint petition.

14. That, it is stated that there is no any contradiction in between
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses .
15. That, it is stated that there is categorical statement of
independent witness P.W.2 Md. Habib Rain that the accused persons were
removing the iron and on protest by Siya Devi ( P.W.5) ,the accused
persons abused and assaulted as also accused Ram Pravesh Thakur opened
the Saree of P.W.5 as also snatched ear ring .
-6-
16. That, the defense has failed to deny the version as spelt out in
the complaint petition as also the evidence come during the course of
investigation and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
17. That, it is stated that even in the cross –examination none of the
witnesses betrayed from their consistent statement even though the learned
trial court without going into the facts in detail passed the impugned
judgment and order by acquitted the accused persons vide judgment and
order dated 20.09.2013.
judgment and order dated 20.09.2013 passed by
Sri Md. Habibullah , the learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi in G. R.
No.388 of 2007 / Trial No.234 of 2013,the above

named petitioner begs to prefer this memo of
appeal on amongst the other following
GR OUNDS:
I. For that the impugned Judgment is bad in law as well as on
facts.
II. For that , the learned trial court has not perused the evidence
in its proper perspective .
-7-
III. For that, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused
persons i.e. Respondent no.2 to 6 without taking into consideration that the
evidence of prosecution witnesses are consistent .
IV. For that, while acquitting the accused persons ,the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that there is no contradiction in between the
deposition of witnesses .
V. For that, while acquitting the accused persons ,the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that the independent witness P.W.2 Habi Rain
categorically stated that on asking of P.W.5 ,he had gone to the place of
occurrence where the accused persons abused and assaulted the P.W.5 as
also opened her Sari .

VI. For that , while acquitting the accused persons ,the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that the defense has failed to betray the
prosecution witnesses in cross -examination .
VII. For that, while acquitting the accused persons ,the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that all the witnesses have fully supported the
prosecution version .
VIII. For that, the impugned judgment and order on the point of
sentence is otherwise bad in law and fit to be set aside.
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordships may
graciously be pleased to admit this appeal ,issue notice to the
Respondent ,call for the records of learned trial court and after
-8-
hearing the parties be further pleased to set aside the
judgment and order dated 20.09.2013 passed by Sri Md.
Habibullah , the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,
Pupri at Sitamarhi in G. R. No.388 of 2007 / Trial No.234 of
2013 and convict the accused persons i.e. Respondent nos. 2 to
6 under the charges framed against them .
A N D /O R
Pass such other order or orders as your Lordship may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case .

IN
S.L.A. NO._________________/OF 2014.
AND
In the matter of :-
Upendra Paswan ….………………………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and others…………………RESPONDENTS.
To,
-2-
Special Leave Application.
Special Leave Application against the judgment and order dated
22.04.2013 passed by Sri Jagannath Rai, learned 1 st Additional Sessions
Judge –cum- Special Judge , Sitamarhi in S.C./S.T. Case No.04 of 2011
arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1-617 of 2006 , Trial No.02 of 2011
whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
pleased to acquit the accused persons who were charged for the offence
under Sections 384, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (X) ,
3(1) (ix) ,3(II) (V) , 3 (II)(VI) and 3 (II) (VII) of the S.C. /S.T. Prevention
of Atrocities Act .
4. That, it is stated that the petitioner is a very poor and illiterate
persons and he does not know about any legal impediment .
5. That, it is stated that apart from the learned Public
Prosecutor ,the petitioner had deputed a private Clerk of the Civil Court
to watch out the case and inform about the development of the case but the
said Private
Clerk did not inform about the said judgment and order and the petitioner
-3-
is under the impression that the case is pending.
6. That, it is stated that in the second week of February,2014
when the petitioner heard a rumour that the accused persons of the case has
been acquitted by the learned trial court then the petitioner immediately
contacted the said private Clerk of the Civil Court then he asked the
petitioner about the said judgment and order .
7. That, it is stated that thereafter the petitioner immediately
came at Patna and contacted the learned counsel and the instant petition is
being filed.
petitioner .
application .
AND/OR
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2014.
AND
In the matter of :-
Anjani Kumar Singh ………………………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and another..……………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
the petitioners above named;
-2-
revision application.

criminal revision application against the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur whereby and where
under the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of Rs.500/- to the
Opposite-party no.2 as litigation cost on each date and the petitioner is
under the impression that the matter come to an end on 4-5 dates ,therefore,
the petitioner could not approach this Hon'ble Court ,challenging the said
order .
4. That, it is stated that when the matter is not come to an end on
several dates ,then the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
in the lower court advised the petitioner to challenge the said order before
this Hon'ble Court and accordingly the petitioner approached the present
counsel and accordingly on 01.11.2013 , the quashing application has been
filed for which there is no limitation but the stamp reporter pointed out the
defect that the quashing application is not maintainable and accordingly the
said quashing application is converted into revision application for which
limitation is expired on 18.04.2013.
-3-
petitioner .

application .
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2014.
Section 19(iv) of the Family Court
Act, 1984 ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Hari Narayan Kumar , son of Amiri Lal Sah ,
Resident of village- Dumarbana , P.S. Bairgania ,District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Khusbu Kumari ,wife of Hari Narayan Kumar ,
Resident of village- Dumarbana , P.S. Bairgania ,District – Sitamarhi.
To,
-2-

dated 30.10.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.04 of 2012 by learned
Principal Judge , Family Court, Sitamarhi , whereby and where under the
learned Principal Judge was pleased to direct the petitioner to pay interim
maintenance allowance to the Opposite-party no.2 and her children
Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand only ) per month till the disposal of the
case .
3. That, the Opposite-party no.2 had filed a maintenance case
in the court of learned Principal Judge , Family Court , Sitamarhi under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging therein that her
marriage was performed with the petitioner on 02.02.2006 and from their
wedlock three issues were born out namely Asha Kumari, Ayush ah and
Ichha Kumari .
The Opposite-party no.2 further alleged that from very
beginning the petitioner always demand money and also induced to ask
money from her parents and in the event of refusal the petitioner and his
-3-
other family members always tortured her and threatened for dire
consequences.
The Opposite-party no.2 further alleged that in the month of
July, 2010, she was forcibly ousted from the in-law’s house with a threat
that if in future she will try to come to the in-law’s house then she will
come with all the articles and cash as demanded by him.
The Opposite-party no.2 further alleged that for the said
incidence , she lodged a case against the petitioner and others in Police
Station under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/ 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act which was registered as Bairgania P.S. Case
No.82 of 2010.
The Opposite-party no.2 further alleged that at the time of
anticipatory bail , the petitioner assured the learned court that he will keep
the Opposite-party no.2 with all dignity and honour and accordingly the
paragraph was granted bail and by the order of the court the petitioner took
away the Opposite-party in his house.
The Opposite-party no.2 further alleged that after some time
the petitioner again came in his earlier from and again started demanding
the articles and cash and on non-fulfillment the said demand , she was
again ousted from the house.
The Opposite-party no.2 further alleged that the petitioner
deserted her life and is not taking care either to her or the children as a
-4-
result of which she and her children is at the verge of starvation.
The Opposite-party no.2 further alleged that the petitioner has
sufficient means to pay the maintenance amount to her and her children
since the petitioner has sufficient source of incomes by the business ,
landed property and house .
4. That, it is stated that the aforesaid maintenance case filed by the
Opposite-party no.2 in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Sitamarhi was registered as Maintenance Case No.04 of 2012 .
A true photo stat copy of the plaint of
Maintenance Case No.4 of 2012 is
annexed herewith and marked as
4. That, it is relevant to mention here that the marriage of the
petitioner was performed with the Opposite-party no.2 under SAMUHIK
KANYADAN SAMAROH at Sahara town Lucknow on 03.02.2006 in the
presence of members of both the parties as organized by the Sahara
Welfare Foundation and in this regard an invitation letter was issued by the
Assistant Director (Events ) to the father of the Opposite-party no.2 on
09.01.2006.
A true photo stat copy of the
Invitation Letter dated 09.01.2006
-5-
5. That, it is stated that accordingly the marriage certificate was
granted by the Marriage Office of Lucknow on 03.02.2006 upon which the
petitioner and Opposite-party no.2 put their signature and the same was
witnessed by the mother of the Opposite-party no.2 and two others .
Marriage Certificate dated
petition.
6. That, from perusal of ANNEXURE- 2 and 3 ,it is apparently
clear that the marriage of the petitioner and Opposite-party no.2 was
performed without any dowry and expenditure of marriage .
7. That, it is stated that the mother of the Opposite-party no.2 is
the lady of questionable character and she is habitual to lodge false cases
against the innocent persons only to harass them as also to create hurdle in
discharge of the public duties . The lodgment of Complaint Case No.959 of
2008 by the mother of the Opposite-party no.2 namely Rani Devi against
Bunni Lal Sah and Hari Shankar Chaudhary is the example of that .
Complaint Case No.959 of 2008 is
-6-
8. That, it is stated that the Block Development Officer , Bairgania
lodged a case bearing Bairgania P.S. Case No.105 of 2008 dated
20.08.2008 under Sections 147, 149, 353, 337, 307, 114, 379 , 388 and 504
of the Indian Penal Code against the mother of the Opposite-party no.2
namely Rani Devi and others when they creating obstacle and nuisance in
discharge of public duties .
Bairgania P.S. Case No.105 of 2008
this petition.
9. That, it is relevant to mention here that after taking loan from
the Bank , the petitioner started a business of readymade shop but due to
bad luck the said business did not run properly and in the mean time the
petitioner met with an accident in the year 2013 in which both legs and
other part of the body has been fractured which is evident from the Medical
Prescription itself.
A true photo stat copy of the Medical
Prescription is annexed herewith and
-7-
petition.
10. That, it is stated that due to non proper running of the
business ,the petitioner could not re-pay the Bank Loan amount ,therefore,
the Branch Manager , State Bank of India , Bairgania sent a notice to the
petitioner vide notice dated 31.01.2013 wherein the petitioner was asked to
deposit the principal amount of Rs.1,91,248/- with interest within 15 days
but the petitioner could not deposit the same .
A true photo stat copy of the Bank
Notice dated 31.01.2013 is annexed
herewith and marked as
11. That, it is relevant to mention here that the father of the
petitioner is farmer and in the share of father of the petitioner there is only
6 Bighas of land and the petitioner has four brothers and three sister out of
which the marriage of only one sister has been performed.
12. That, it is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner was
hardly earning Rs.3,000/- per month and after accident he is not earning any
single farthing and he is fully dependant on others.
13. That, it is stated that the petitioner has four children out of
which two children are living with the petitioner and two are living with the
Opposite-party .
-8-
14. That, it is stated that Opposite-party no.2 had done all these
things on the instances of her mother ,who is the lady of questionable and
litigating character lady and the Opposite-party no.2 is in full grip of her
mother .
15. That, the fact is that the petitioner neither demanded any cash
or articles nor tortured the Opposite-party no.2 nor ousted from the house at
any point of time rather the petitioner loved the petitioner with his inner
heart but the Opposite-party no.2 at the instances of her mother had done all
these things.
16. That, it is stated that after service of notice ,the petitioner
appeared and filed his show-cause ,denying all the facts in detail as
mentioned above . In the show-cause ,the petitioner specifically said that he
is totally dependant on his parents and he is ready to keep the Opposite-
party no.2 along with the children and maintain them ,therefore, in such a
condition no interim maintenance allowance is liable to pay.
A true photo stat copy of the show-
cause filed by the petitioner is
17. That, it is stated that learned Principal Judge , Family Court ,
Sitamarhi passed the impugned order dated 30.10.2013whereby and where
under he directed the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance allowance to
-9-
the Opposite-party no.2 and her children Rs.5,000/- per month without
going into the facts as mentioned in show-cause filed on behalf of the
petitioner as also the oral submission made on behalf of the petitioner ,l
18. That, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge
is fit to be set aside since it is the disproportionate to the income of the
petitioner as well as non-consideration of the facts .
dated 30.10.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.04 of
2012 by learned Principal Judge , Family Court,
Sitamarhi , the above named petitioner begs
to prefer this revision application on amongst the
other following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal
Judge is bad in law as well as on facts .
Principle Judge failed to appreciate that there is categorical statement of the
petitioner in his show-cause that he is ready to keep the Opposite-party
no.2 with her children and maintain them ,therefore, there is no occasion to
direct the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance allowance to the
Opposite-party no.2 though the court should have directed the Opposite-
party no.2 to go and live with the petitioner.
-10-
Principle Judge failed to appreciate that there is categorical statement of
the petitioner that he is fully dependant on his parents and there is no
denial of the Opposite-party no.2 on this point then it is not proper for the
learned Principal Judge to direct the petitioner to pay the heavy amount of
Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance.
IV. For that, the learned Principal Judge has fixed the amount of
interim maintenance which is quite disproportionate to the earning of the
petitioner and his family .
V. For that , while passing the impugned order the learned
Principle Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner met with an accident
in which his both legs and other part of the body fractured and he is fully
dependant on others .
VI. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this
revision application, call for the records and
issue notice to the opposite-party no.2 and after
hearing the parties be further pleased to set aside
the order dated 30.10.2013 passed in Misc. Case
-11-
No.04 of 2012 by learned Principal Judge ,
Family Court, Sitamarhi.
A N D/ OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordship
A ND
During the pendency of this application ,the
operation of the impugned order dated
30.10.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.04 of 2012
by learned Principal Judge , Family Court,
Sitamarhi may kindly be stayed.

IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2014.
AND
In the matter of :-
Md. Maksud Alam and another………………..…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Bihar ……….……....……………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,
-2-
the petitioners above named for condonation of delay in filing of the instant
2. That, the petitioners have not filed any application like the
3. That, it is stated that against the judgment and order dated
13.05.2009 passed by Sri P. Paswan, the learned Judicial Magistrate , 1 st
Class , Sitamarhi , the petitioners preferred appeal bearing Cr. Appeal
No.27 of 2009 / 03 of 2012 and during the pendency of the appeal the
petitioners were enlarged on bail .
4. That, it is stated that after enlarge on bail ,the petitioners
proceeded to earn his livelihood with a request to the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the learned lower appellate court
to inform them about the outcome of the appeal .
5. That, it is stated that the aforesaid criminal appeal was finally
heard by the learned appellate court on 28.02.2013 by which the appeal
filed by the petitioners was dismissed and judgment and order of the
learned trial court was upheld but the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners before the learned appellate court could not inform the
petitioners ,therefore, the petitioners could not get knowledge about the
said order.
-3-
6. That, it is stated that when the petitioners contacted the learned
counsel in the second week of December ,2013 ,then they could get
knowledge about the order dated 28.02.2013 and they immediately
surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class ,Sitamarhi on
17.12.2013 and in this regard a surrender slip dated 17.12.2013 issued by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class , Sitamarhi on 17.12.2013 itself which
is evident from ANNEXURE- 2 of the revision application .
7. That, it is stated that thereafter after arranging the money , the
pairvikar of the petitioners in the last week of December , 2013 had
come at Patna and contacted the learned counsel and handed over the File to
file the present criminal revision application and accordingly the instant
criminal revision application is being filed .
petitioner .
application .
-4-
AND/OR

CAUSE TITLE
( PETITIONERS IN JAIL )
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2014.
Criminal Procedure,1973 ;
AND
In the matter of :-
1. Md. Maksud Alam, son of Late Md. Yakub
2. Motiur Rahman @ Lal Babu, son of Late Md. Yakub ,
Both resident of village- Ram Nayak, P.S. Parihar , District –
Sitamarhi.
……………………PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar...………………………..……OPPOSITE -PARTY.
-7-
passed by learned Sri P. Paswan , Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class , Sitamarhi
was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi vide Cr.
Appeal No.27 of 2009/03 of 2012 which was heard by the learned Ad-hoc
Additional Sessions Judge -1 , Sitamarhi and dismissed vide its order dated
28.02.2013 and confirmed the order of learned trial court dated 13.05.2009.
11. That, it is stated that after getting knowledge of the dismissal
of the criminal appeal ,the petitioners immediately surrendered before the
learned trial court on 17.12.2013 .
A true photo stat copy of the surrender slip dated
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated
28.02.2013 passed by Sri Nand Kishore Tiwari , the learned
Additional Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No. 27 of

2009/03 of 2012 ,confirming the judgment and order of the
learned trial court dated 13.05.2009, the above named
petitioners beg to prefer this revision application on amongst
the other following
GROUNDS:
(i) For that the impugned order dated 28.02.2013 is bad in law as
well as against the weight of evidence on record and it is quite perverse as it
will appear from the analysis made below.

-10-
Truth futures of the evidence as laid down
CAUSE TITLE

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2014.
Criminal Procedure,1973 ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Kashi Nath Singh, son of Late Kailash Singh , legal heirs of the informant
Late Bans Layak Singh , resident of village- Kanchanpur , P.S. Bihta ,
District – Patna.
VERSUS
2. Nagendra Singh @ Narendra Deo Singh , son of Late Raj Ballabh Singh ,
3. Ram Kewal Singh , son of Late Barhmadeo Singh ,
Both are resident of village- Bhadsara , P.S. Dulhin Bazar ,
District – Patna.
…..………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Chief
-2-
Justice of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna and
Her Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble High Court.
/judgment dated 30.08.2013 passed by Sri Mahavir Prasad ,the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class , Danapur in Case No. 1312/1980 (G.R. No.)
621/2013 (Tr. No.)
arising out of Bikram P.S. Case No.01 of 1980 by which he has been
pleased to acquit both the accused persons without applying his judicial
mind and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved earlier in this case either in
the Hon'ble High Court or before the learned Sessions Judge ,Patna against
the impugned order previous to this application.
3. That, during the pendency of the trial the informant namely
Bans Layak Singh died in the year 1994 and his wife also died during his
life time .The informant was issueless and the petitioner is his Bhagina
( sister’s son ) in whose favour the informant has executed a WILL with
regard to all his property including the land with regard to which the
accused persons have got a sale –deed executed on 18.08.1980 by
impersonation after the death of Late Subhagiya Devi on 16.08.1980 and
-3-
the informant was her legal heir and was inherited the property of Late
Subhagiya Devi.
4. That, the prosecution case ,in brief, is that the informant had
filed a complaint petition before the court of learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate ,Danapur on 12.09.1980 alleging therein that he has the
owner and proprietor of his ancestral property situated in Tauzi No.4387 ,
Khata No.83 , Plot No.2349 , 2362 ,2319, 4314,4518 and 4415 . It is further
alleged that he knows that the accused Satyadeo Sharma and Nagendra Deo
Sharma had set up their own mother Maha Sundari Devi to impersonate for
Mosmat Subhagiya Devi wife of Jadu Singh to execute a sale-deed on
18.08.1980 with a view to secure and obtain a fraudulent ,forged and
fabricated sale-deed in respect of the lands of the informant . It is further
alleged that the Mosmat Subhagiya Devi was the aunt of the informant and
she live with the informant during her life time and she had expired on
16.08.1980 because she was ailing since about 3 months prior to the date
of occurrence in the case and she never went out to be able to execute any
document as fabricated by the accused persons . It is further alleged that
Subhagiya Devi was aged about 90 years and was not able to move about
freely from inside the house and had to be assisted by some one in the house
of the informant to attend her natural calls . It is further alleged that the
accused persons conspired with each other fabricated document through
Maha Sundari Devi who has lent her services dishonestly and fraudulently
-4-
to appear and imposter for Subhagiya Devi and thereby have attended and
abetted the fabrication of the document in question . It is further alleged that
the informant got certified copy of the document and the document has not
been the signature of thumb impression of Subhagiya Devi rather it is
Maha Sundari Devi ,who had put her thumb impression. It is further
alleged that the accused persons Ram Kewal Singh and Sheo Kumar
Mishir had also joined in conspiracy for fabrication of the document with
the accused persons Satyadeo Sharma , Nagendra Deo Sharma and

Mahasundari Devi . It is further alleged that the informant requested to
arrest the accused persons and obtain the thumb impression for the purpose
of compare the signature or thumb impression of the registered sale-deed
and he further requested to seize the original sale-deed in question for
impending the original document from the Registration Office . The learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Danapur sent the complaint petition
to Bikram Police Station to register the case and the Bikram P.S. Case
No.01 of 1980 80 Under Sections 419, 465, 467 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code was registered and investigation was taken up .
5. That, the Investigating Officer of the case submitted charge
sheet against all the accused persons under aforementioned Sections.
6. That, the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,
Danapur took cognizance against all the accused persons and the case
record was transferred in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class ,
-5-
Danapur for trial and disposal and lastly it was received in this court on
10.07.2011.
7. That, the charges were framed against the accused persons on
13.08.1984 . The name of the accused persons Mahasundari Devi and the
accused Satyadeo Sharma were deleted vide order dated 29.01.2002
because they have died . The name of the accused person Shiv Kumar was
also deleted vide order dated 16.06.2006 due to death and rest accused
persons have faced the trial.

8. That, the statements of the accused persons have been recorded
Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they
pleaded their innocence.
9. That, it appears that the accused persons got a collusive death
certificate no.77 dated 17.01.1981 in which the date of death of Subhagiya
Devi has been erroneously mentioned as 21.08.1980 to cover the execution
of the impugned sale-deed got executed by the accused persons on
18.08.1980 although Subhagiya Devi had already died on 16.08.1980.
The aforementioned death certificate dated 17.01.1981 was
procured by the accused persons in collusion with the then Panchayat
Secretary which has later been duly cancelled by Project Executive Officer
( P.E.O.) , Bikram ( Patna , the said cancellation order was contained in
memo no.595 dated 10.04.1981.
-6-
A true copy of the cancellation order
dated 10.04.1981 is made
ANNEXURE- “1” to this application.
10. That, despite the cancellation of the previous erroneous and
collusive death certificate to the accused persons submitted the death
certificate before the learned trial court and was made Exhibit-A and has
also been relied upon by the learned trial court and on the basis of
aforesaid collusive death certificate , the learned trial court did not accept
the prosecution case that Subhagiya Devi was already died on 16.08.1980
before the execution of the sale-deed purported to have been executed by
Subhagiya Devi on 18.08.1980.
11. That, the accused persons have also submitted that certified
copy of the aforesaid sale-deed executed on 18.08.1980 and the same was
made Exhibit- B.
12. That, according to the defense case itself the original sale-deed
dated 18.08.1980 which the accused persons have got executed on
18.08.1980 through Mahasundari Devi impersonating Subhagiya Devi the
real owner of the said land in question . The original sale-deed has been
suppressed by the accused persons with the sole intention that the signature/
thumb impression given by Mahasundari Devi as Subhagiya Devi on the
sale-deed may not be compared with the signature or thumb impression of
Subhagiya Devi.
-7-
13. That, the crux of the matter is that Subhagiya Devi died on
16.08.1980 itself in that view of the matter any sale-deed admittedly
accused had got executed on 18.08.1980 in their favour purported to be
executed by Subhagiya Devi can only be done by impersonating her and
thus any evidence of eye witness is not the crucial thing to be proved by
the prosecution.
14. That, the learned trial court has erred in drawing adverse
inference on the ground that there is no eye witness of the alleged

impersonation of Subhagiya Devi by any lady much less Mahasundari
Devi ,who also died during the primary stage of the trial and as such the
question as to accused Maha Sundari Devi had impersonated becomes non-
existence.
15. That, the learned trial court had also erred in drawing adverse
inference on the ground that the informant had not filed any suit for
cancellation of the impugned sale-deed executed on 18.08.1980 by
impersonation.
16. That, in view of the admission of the accused that a sale-deed
has been executed on 18.08.1980 with regard to the property of Mosmat
Subhagiya Devi in their favour the learned trial court has erred in giving
undue wait on the irrelevant evidence not given by the informant with
regard to plot number and non- production of the Khatiyan of land
transferred through the impugned sale-deed and as such the learned trial
court has erred in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution
-8-
erroneously holding that the prosecution has not been able to prove his
case beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. That, it goes without saying that the original sale-deed in
question is in possession of the accused persons ,who had simply filed and
got exhibited the certified copy of the sale-deed and as such the learned
trial court has erred in holding that the prosecution has not filed /exhibited
the registered sale-deed in question.

18. That, it would appear from the records of the case that
originally a complaint petition was filed in the court of the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate , Danapur ,which was referred by the
court to the Police for registration and investigation of the case by the
Police and the said complaint filed in the court was made basis of the
registration of the case by drawing First Information Report and as such in
that regard the learned trial court has erred in holding that First Information
Report bears no signature of the complaint /informant and the signature has
not been proved.
19. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case that the finding
of the learned trial court that the prosecution has not produced certified
copy of registered sale-deed is erroneous as certified copy of the sale-deed
in question is already available as exhibit in the case.
20. That, the finding of the learned trial court that no relative of
Subhagiya Devi has been examined by the prosecution is perverse and
-9-
against the records of the case Late Subhagiya Devi was aunt of P.W.4 and
was living with P.W.4 as P.W.4 was only legal heir of Late Subhagiya Devi,
who was widow and died issueless .
21. That, due to erroneous and non-consideration of the evidence
by the learned trial court the accused persons have been acquitted by the
learned trial court by impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2013.

Sri Mahavir Prasad ,the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class , Danapur in Case
No. 1312/1980 (G.R. No . ) ,(State through Bans

621/2013 (Tr. No.)
Layak Singh- Versus- Nagendra Singh and others(
, the petitioner begs to file this revision petition
on amongst others following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is bad in law as well as on facts.
II. For that, the findings given by the learned trial court are
perverse and against the records of the case which have erroneously
resulted in acquittal of accused persons.
III. For that, the learned trial court has committed serious error of
records resulting in acquittal of the accused persons .
-10-
IV. For that, impugned judgment and order of acquittal has been
passed on the basis of non-consideration and irrelevant consideration of
the facts made by the learned trial court.
V. For that the learned trial court has erroneously drawn adverse
inference leading to miscarriage of justice resulting in acquittal of the
accused persons.
It is ,therefore, prayed that your Lordships may
graciously be pleased to admit this revision
application, call for the records of the case , issue
notice to the opposite-parties and after hearing
the parties allow the same and set aside the
impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2013
passed by Sri Mahavir Prasad ,the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class , Danapur in Case
No. 1312/1980 (G.R. No.) and pass such other

621/2013 (Tr. No.)
order and orders which may deem fit and proper.
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2014.

AND
In the matter of :-
Kashi Nath Singh ……………….…………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and others....……………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The humble limitation petition on
behalf of the petitioners above
named;
-2-
1. That, this interlocutory application on behalf of the petitioner
above named is for condonation of delay in filing of the present criminal
present one earlier before this Hon'ble Court.
3. That, informant got himself examined in the trial as P.W.4 as
last prosecution witness on 09.01.1987 and thereafter the trial remained

pending for the examination of defense witness who was examined on
10.05.2013 and thereafter the statement of the two accused persons facing
the trial was recorded.
4. That, after the examination of the informant last prosecution
witness as P.W.4 on 09.01.1987 ,the learned A.P.P. had told the informant
that he is no more required in the case and in that circumstance the
informant was simply waiting for the conclusion of the trial and during the
pendency of the trial ,the informant died in the year 1994.
5. That, thereafter the petitioner also kept watching the case .But
during the aforesaid long period taken by the defense and kept the trial
prolonged for causing inordinate delay.
6. That, after the death of informant ,the petitioner remained a
casual visitor of the village of informant namely Lala Bhadsara.
7. That, it is relevant to state here that on 13.12.2013 , when the
petitioner went to village- Lala Bhadsara of informant in order to collect
-3-
the paddy from his inherited land , he came to know about the acquittal of
the accused persons , consequently the petitioner went to Danapur where
he inquired about the case from the court’s records and came to know that
the judgment in the aforesaid trial has been passed on 13.08.2013
acquitting the accused persons.
8. That, thereafter on 14.12.2013 , the petitioner applied for the
certified copy of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2013

passed in Case No.1312/1980 ( G.R. NO.) which was made available to
621/2013 (Tr. No.)
the petitioner on 21.12.2013.
9. That, thereafter on 22.12.2013 the petitioner consulted his
lawyer in the Hon'ble High Court in order to move the High Court against
the order and judgment of acquittal. The lawyer during the aforesaid
consultation asked the petitioner to bring some relevant paper wanted in
the case which has been handed over to the counsel Sri Jitendra Nath
Tiwary and thereafter without causing any further delay the revision
petition is being filed.
10. That, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances delay caused in
filing of the revision petition is not deliberate as the petitioner has taken
all sincere efforts for filing the revision petition in the hi has been taken
after the knowledge of passing of the impugned judgment and order dated
30.08.2013.
-4-
It is ,therefore, respectfully prayed that your
Lordships may be graciously pleased to allow
this interlocutory application ,condoning the delay
in filing the present criminal revision petition in
the Hon'ble High Court and after hearing the
petitioner on merit the same may be disposed of

and pass such other order or orders which may
deem fit and proper.

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2013.
AND
In the matter of :-
Md. Tawrej Ahmad , son of Late Md. Mokimuddin ,
Resident of Mohalla- Shah Zubair Road, P.S. Munger Kotwali ,District –
Munger.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar..……………………..………OPPOSITE -PARTY.

To,
-2-
1. That, this application on behalf of the petitioner above named
is directed against the order dated 24.09.2013 passed by learned Sri S.K.
Chaubey , the learned Sessions Judge , Munger in Sessions Case No.231

of 2011 ,whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge ,Munger was
pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 67 and
68 of the Evidence Act to get the mark the sale-deed exhibited in the case .
3. That, the petitioner is the informant of Munger Kotwali P.S.
Case No.278 of 2010 dated 01.07.2010 registered for the offences under
Sections 147,148, 149, 307, 341 , 323, 452 , 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code , who lodged the aforesaid case against 10 accused persons for
committing attempt to murder and other offences also and the cause
behind the occurrence is the land which was purchased by the petitioner
from one Hussamuddin with constructed building and some portion of the
house own and possessed by Husammudin himself upon which one Md.
Ezaz , Md.Iftekhar Ali are the boundary raiyat ,whose houses are just
adjacent to the house of the petitioner and Husamuddin but the said
adjacent house owner Ezaz and Iftekhar Ali are claiming their ownership of
the land purchased by the petitioner . Initially the vendor of the house of the
namely Husamuddin executed a Jerbeyana on 09.11.2009 and thereafter
-3-
a registered sale-deed was executed on 09.08.2010 vide Kewala Deed
No.3002 .
A true photo stat as well as typed
copy of Kotwali P.S. Case No.278 of

2010 is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE- “1” to this
application.
4. That, not even only the Husamuddin filed a Title Suit No.49
of 2013 which was pending in the court of learned Sub- Judge-2 nd Munger
against Md. Ezaz and others for declaration of his right title and ownership
. Herein this case, the sale-deed dated 09.08.2010 is to be exhibited in
Sessions Case No.231 of 2011 arising out of aforesaid Kotwali P.S. Case
No.278 of 2010 though the certified copy of the sale-deed , Jerbeyana ,
payment of money receipt and other details has already been submitted by
way of list of documents and a photo stat copy of the list of the documents
goes to show that the relevant documents were brought on record.
copy of the list of documents is
5. That, but the learned trial court did not eager to treat the sale-
deed as Exhibit in the trial bearing Sessions Case No.231 of 2011.
-4-
6. That, the petitioner earlier filed a petition dated 03.06.2013 to
call for the Register of Volume No.43 Page Nos. 100 to 108 from the
Registry Office, Sadar Munger ,so that the registered sale-deed can be
exhibited .On the contrary it is said that the petitioner is the tenant and
did not purchase the land as mentioned above . In this contention , the
learned trial court has observed and passed an order on
07.06.2013 ,mentioning therein that without giving proper evidence to
prove the sale-deed there is no necessity to call for the said Register from
the Registry Office and he rejected the petition of the petitioner dated
03.06.2013.
copy of the order dated 07.06.2013 is
7. That, later on when the petitioner filed a petition on
25.07.2013 which was disposed of by the learned trial court vide order
dated 03.09.2013 by observing that the prosecution should file petition as
per Evidence Act in this regard.
copy of the order dated 03.09.2013 is
-5-
8. That, therefore ,the petitioner filed an application under
Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act under which provision the proof of
signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written

documents produced as well as Section -68 reveals that the required
document should be filed under this provision and in such situation as
well as instruction of the learned trial court , the petitioner filed a petition
under Section 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act but the learned trial court
himself rejected the petition filed under Sections 67 and 68 of Evidence
Act dated 24.09.2013 and passed the order impugned on the same day
and directed the learned A.P.P. to produce remaining witnesses on the
next day.
this application.
9. That, the learned trial court is duty bound to adjudicate the
issue in proper manner and without being prejudiced either of the parties
where the issues raised that the sale-deed is important and necessary
document to establish the case of prosecution by the informant though the
defense raised an objection to not exhibit and mark the sale-deed ,so that the
case of prosecution can be failed . In this way ,it is very much necessary to
get the sale-deed be marked as an Exhibit and other documents also.
-6-
dated 24.09.2013 passed by learned Sri S.K.
Chaubey , the learned Sessions Judge , Munger in

Sessions Case No.231 of 2011 , the above
named petitioner begs to prefer this revision
application on amongst the other following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge , Munger is bad in law as well as on facts .
II. For that, the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the
issue raised by the petitioner for exhibit marked of the sale-deed which is
the cause of action of the petitioner but the learned trial court passed the
impugned order in haste .
III. For that, the learned trial court failed to enumerate the
Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act and pass the impugned order which
is quite illegal in the eye of law .
IV. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider to examine
the case in totality and its consequences and pass the impugned order
which is illegal in the eye of law and fit to be set aside.
V. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
-7-

revision application, call for the records and issue
notice to the opposite-party and after hearing the
parties be further pleased to set aside the
24.09.2013 passed by learned Sri S.K. Chaubey ,
the learned Sessions Judge , Munger in Sessions
Case No.231 of 2011 and direct the learned trial
court to get mark the sale-deed as exhibit in the
case .
A N D/ OR
AND
During the pendency of this application ,the further
proceeding of the learned trial court may kindly
be stayed.

IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2013.
AND
In the matter of :-
Chandradhari Singh ……………….…………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar ……….……....……………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,
-2-
24.11.2011 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,
Sheohar ,the petitioner preferred appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No.108 of 2011
and during the pendency of the appeal the petitioner was enlarged on bail .
4. That, it is stated that after enlarge on bail ,the petitioner
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the learned lower appellate court to
inform him about the outcome of the appeal .
filed by the petitioner was dismissed and judgment and order of the
of the petitioner before the learned appellate court could not inform the
petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner could not get knowledge about the said
order.
6. That, it is stated that when the petitioner contacted the learned
counsel in the last week of October , 2013 ,then he could get knowledge
-3-
about the order dated 01.06.2013 and he immediately surrendered before the
learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sheohar on 31.10.2013 and in
this regard a surrender slip dated 31.10.2013 issued by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sheohar on 31.10.2013 itself which is
evident from ANNEXURE- 2 of the revision application .
7. That, it is stated that thereafter after arranging the money , the
pairvikar of the petitioner in the second week of November , 2013 had
come at Patna and contacted the learned counsel and handed over the File to
file the present criminal revision application and accordingly the instant
criminal revision application is being filed .
petitioner .
application .
-4-
AND/OR

( PETITIONER IN CUSTODY)
CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2013.
In the matter of an application Under
Section-53 of the Juvenile Justice
( Care& Protection of Children ) Act,
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Manoj Kumar, son of Chandeshwar Das ,
Resident of village- Pokhraira , P.S. Saraiya , District – Muzaffarpur.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar. …….…………..……………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,
-2-
dated 25.09.2013 passed by Sri Subodh Kumar Srivastava , the learned 5 th
Additional Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No.73 of
2013 ,whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge , Muzaffarpur
was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirm the
order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Muzaffarpur in Saraiya P.S. Case No.93 of 2013 dated 27.04.2013
registered for the offence under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code
by which the learned Juvenile Justice Board was refused to grant bail to
the petitioner .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
Court any time earlier against the impugned order .
3. That, the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent .
4. That, the prosecution case as alleged in the First Information
Report , in short, interalia is that on 27.04.2013 ,the informant Ashok Sah
filed a written report before the Out Post Incharge of Jaitpur Out Post
alleging therein interalia that on 26.04.2013 at 5 P.M. in the evening her
daughter namely Soni Kumari aged about -14 years had gone to call of
nature outside the house and during the course of returning Manoj Kumar
-3-
(petitioner herein ) had tried to commit illegal work with his daughter after
overthrowing in the field of maize of Maheshwar Singh but his daughter
any how come to the house in weeping and narrated about the occurrence.
5. That, on the basis of the aforesaid written report of the
informant , Saraiya Police drew up a formal First Information Report
and registered a case being Saraiya P.S. Case No.93 of 2013 dated
27.04.2013 attributing offence under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal
Code .
A true photo stat/typed copy of the
F.I.R. of Saraiya P.S. Case No.93 of
2013 dated 27.04.2013 is annexed
ANNEXURE-“1” for identification
forming part of this application.
6. That, this case is presently pending in the court of the learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur arising out of Saraiya P.S. Case No.93
of 2013 dated 27.04.2013 attributing offence under Section 376/511 of
7. That, the petitioner is innocent having committed no offence
whatsoever and he has been falsely implicated in the present case .
-4-
8. That, it is stated that the petitioner is minor since the petitioner
is aged about 17 years and his date of birth is 13.04.1996 which is evident
from the Admit Card issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
A true photo stat copy of the Admit
Card of the petitioner is annexed
9. That, it is stated since the petitioner is minor ,therefore, the
learned Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 23.07.2013
declared the petitioner as Juvenile.
10. That, it is stated that the petitioner is appearing candidate of
Matriculation Examination on the date of so-called occurrence which is
evident from the admit card as contained in ANNEXURE- 2 itself ,therefore,
the informant lodged the instant case with false and concocted allegation
only with a view to spoil the bright career of the petitioner since there is
long dispute between both the families .
11. That, it is admitted fact that the family of the petitioner and the
family of the informant is the co-villager and agnates to each other.
12. That, it is stated that even according to recital of the First
Information Report , there is no allegation of committing rape rather there is
only allegation of trying to commit rape .
-5-
13. That, it is stated that according to the First Information Report
the alleged date and time of commission of the offence is 5 P.M. on
26.04.2013 but the information was given to the Police- Station on
27.04.2013 at 9.30 A.M. though the distance of the police- station is hardly
7 K.M.
14. That, the fact is that the petitioner has not committed any such
offence as alleged in the First Information Report and for the moment if the
petitioner has committed such offence but it is emphatically denied by the
petitioner then he is not waiting for his arrest rather he fled away from the
house but the petitioner did not do so which falsifies the entire prosecution
version .
15. That, it is stated that the petitioner was behind the bars since
27.04.2013 i.e. since the date of institution of the First Information Report
itself.
16. That, even though the petitioner was declared juvenile when
his bail application was filed before the learned Juvenile Justice
Board ,Muzaffarpur which was rejected vide order dated 14.08.2013.
order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board is
-6-
17. That, against the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board ,Muzaffarpur , the petitioner filed appeal in
the court of learned Sessions Judge , Muzaffarpur which was numbered as
Cr. Appeal No.73 of 2013 wherein vide order dated 25,09,2013 ,the learned
5th Additional Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur was pleased to reject the
petitioner’s prayer for bail on the ground that if the appellant is released on
bail he may come in contact with unsocial element .
18. That, the parents of the petitioner undertakes to take care
about the activities of the petitioner in future.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order
dated 25.09.2013 passed by Sri Subodh Kumar
Srivastava , the learned 5th Additional Sessions
Judge ,Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No.73 of 2013 ,
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts.
II. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that prayer for bail of a juvenile can be
-7-
rejected only on the ground mentioned in the Juvenile Justice Act and for no
other reason.
III. For that, the reason assigned by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge for rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for bail is alien to the
provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and ,therefore, cannot be sustained in the
eye of law.
IV. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal filed for grant of
bail to the petitioner ,the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur
also failed to appreciate the facts of the case that according to birth
certificate of the petitioner he is aged about -17 years and he is the
appearing candidate of Matriculation and if the petitioner is put behind the
bars then his bright career is being spoiled .
V. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal filed for grant of
also failed to appreciate that the parents of the petitioner undertake to take
care and vigilant about the activities of the petitioner in future .
VI. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal filed for grant of
also failed to appreciate that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case by the informant due to enmity only with a view to ruin the
bright career of the petitioner .
-8-
VII. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal filed for grant of
also failed to appreciate that there is no any cogent evidence on record to
support the prosecution version as alleged in the First Information Report .
VIII. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that rejection of bail of the
petitioner would adversely affect the bright career of the petitioner .
IX. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law .
application, issue notice to the opposite-party and
after hearing the parties be further pleased to set
aside the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by Sri
Subodh Kumar Srivastava , the learned 5 th
Additional Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur in Cr.
Appeal No.73 of 2013 and be further pleased to
direct for release of the petitioner on bail to the
satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board ,
Muzaffarpur in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case
No.93 of 2013 dated 27.04.2013 .
-9-
AND/OR

( PETITIONER IN REMAND HOME )
CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2013.
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Santu Kumar ,son of Photo Yadav,
Resident of village- Prem Tola , Farda , P.S. Naya Ram Nagar, District –
Munger.
VERSUS
To,
-2-

1. That, this revision application is directed against the judgment
and order dated 05.07. 2013 passed by learned Sri Surendra Kumar
Choubey the learned Sessions Judge ,Munger in Cr. Appeal No.95 of 2013
,whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge , Munger was
pleased to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated
29.06.2013 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board , Munger by
which the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Munger was pleased to reject
petitioner’s application for bail in connection with G.R. Case No.1740A of
2012 arising out of Naya Ram Nagar P.S. Case No.161 of 2012 registered
for the offence under Sections 353, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of the Arms Act .
3. That, the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.
Report ,in brief , is that the informant who is the Out Post Incharge of
Safisarai recorded his self statement on 28.10.2012 stating therein that on
-3-
27.10.2012 at about 23.30 O’clock having got secret information that the
accused persons of Naya Ram Nagar ( Safiasarai ) P. S. Case No.81 of 2012
having armed with weapons concealed themselves near Jagdamba Asthan

and accordingly raiding party consisting the Police Officers and officials
reached near Jagdambapur and surrounded the miscreants and on
suspicion , the miscreants started firing and the police force arrested four
accused persons including this petitioner and all of them were search and
one double barrel gun was recovered from Deepak Yadav , one country
made pistol was recovered from Rahul Yadav and one country made pistol
and one cartridge was recovered from the petitioner and the details of arms
and cartridges has been mentioned in the First Information Report .
5. That, on the basis of aforesaid self recorded statement of
informant , Naya Ram Nagar ( Safiasarai ) P.S. Case No.161 of 2012 dated
28.10.2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 353, 307/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B) A /26/27/35 of the Arms Act.
copy of the F.I.R. of Naya Ram
Nagar ( Safiasarai ) P.S. Case No.161
of 2012 is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE-“1” to this
application.
-4-
6. That, the petitioner is quite innocent and he has been falsely
implicated in this case because the father of the petitioner was asked to put
his signature on a blank paper for preparation of seizure list when the other
three accused persons were arrested and on denial some altercation took
place between the informant and the father of the petitioner .
Meanwhile ,having heard the alarm and sound of his father , the petitioner
reached there and started to rescue his father with the altercation between
the police and others , meanwhile the police has taken abroad the petitioner
on his Jeep and booked the petitioner in the present case by showing the
illegal recovery from his possession.
7. That, the petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile
Justice Board and thereafter the petitioner moved his application before the
learned Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected on 29.06.2013 without
considering the nature of allegation as well as recovery of illegal
arms ,which was planted by the police at the instance of enemy of the
petitioner .
A true photo stat copy of the order
dated 29.06.2013 passed by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board is
-5-
8. That, thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
learned Sessions Judge ,Munger and the learned Sessions Judge himself
without being examined the facts and circumstances as well as without
asking any affidavit or bond executed by the parents of the petitioner
detained himself that the petitioner is likely to go into the company of
known criminals and the petitioner may be exposed to moral ,physical and
psychological danger and the learned court drew his opinion that it is not
proper to release the petitioner on bail and by observing the aforesaid facts
and circumstances , the memo of appeal was dismissed by the learned
Sessions Judge ,Munger on 05.09.2013.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgment
and order dated 05.07. 2013 passed by learned Sri
Surendra Kumar Choubey the learned Sessions
Judge ,Munger in Cr. Appeal No.95 of 2013 , the
above named petitioner begs to prefer this revision
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the petitioner is admittedly juvenile and it is quite
illegal to say that the petitioner is about to attain the age of majority and
on this ground the appeal is dismissed.
-6-
III. For that ,the petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and there is
no chance that he is likely to go in the company of known criminals.

IV. For that, the father of the petitioner is ready to swear affidavit
in this regard that the petitioner will live under the command and
guardianship of his father.
V. For that, the informant who is the Police Officer, himself
planted the case in retaliation due to the father of the petitioner was not
ready to put his signature on a blank paper for the purposes of preparation
of seizure list.
VI. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned
Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that rejection of bail of the petitioner
would adversely affect his career.
VII. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law .
aside the judgment and order dated 05.07. 2013
passed by learned Sri Surendra Kumar Choubey
the learned Sessions Judge ,Munger in Cr. Appeal
No.95 of 2013 and be further pleased to direct for
release of the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction
-7-
of the learned Juvenile Justice Board , Munger in
connection with G.R. Case NO.1740 A of 2012

arising out of Naya Ram Nagar ( Safiasarai ) P.S.
Case No.161 of 2012 .
AND/OR

IN
Cr. Rev. NO.__730_______________/OF 2013.
AND
In the matter of :-
Pankaj Kumar …………………………….……...….PETITIONER.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar through the Vigilance

and another …………………………………..…OPPOSITE-PARTIES.
To,
-2-
3. That, it is stated that initially against the order dated
20.07.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge , Vigilance ( North
Bihar ) , Muzaffarpur in Case No. C-120 of 2012,the petitioner filed a
quashing application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
before this Hon'ble Court and the same was registered but the same was
subsequently converted in to the present criminal revision application by the
order of this Hon'ble Court .
4. That, it is stated that for filing of quashing application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , there is no time bar under
the provision of law.

5. That, it is stated that due to aforesaid reason the present
revision application could not be filed within the prescribed period for filing
of revision application .
6. That, it is stated that there is no intentional or deliberate
latches on the part of the petitioner and whole thing has been happened due
to lack of knowledge .
-3-
application .
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2013.
AND
In the matter of :-
Rakesh Kumar Singh , son of Jai Kishore Singh ,
Resident of village- Paroha , P.S. Dumra ,District – Sitamarhi , the
Advocate Clerk , Civil Court, Sitamarhi .

VERSUS
2. Sri Daya Nidhan Pandey , son of not known to the petitioner ,
District Collector , Sitamarhi.
3. Raj Kumar Sinha, son of not known to the petitioner ,
District Section Officer –cum- Executive Magistrate , Copying
Department , Collectorate, Sitamarhi .
….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
is for setting aside the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by Sri Awadhesh
Kumar , the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar

in Complaint Case No. C1/1127 of 2011 , whereby and where under the
learned Magistrate has been pleased to dismiss the complaint petition filed
by the petitioner and directed the office to deposit the case records in the
Record Room.
or before the learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi earlier against the
3. That, the petitioner had filed a complaint petition before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi on 26.08.2011 stating
therein that he is working as Advocate Clerk in Civil Court ,Sitamarhi and
due to that , he usually used to go at Collectorate Sitamarhi in Copying
Department for taking certified copy of the documents of the parties.
-3-
The complainant further said that on 23.08.2011 at about 2.30
P.M. he reached near the Copying Section of Sitamarhi Collectorate ,
accused no.2 (Opposite-party no.3) restrained him and his witnesses and
told them about the purpose to come there then he and the witnesses told
the accused no.2 that they have already filed a requisition for certified
copy in the Copying Department upon which the accused no.2 he started
abusing and giving threatening for direct consequences.
The complaint further alleged that the accused no.2 took him
and the witnesses at the chamber of the District Magistrate ,Sitamarhi

( accused no.1) where he and the witnesses were restrained for one and
half hour and they have been left free after taking the bond in presence of
the learned counsel.
4. That, it is stated that the aforesaid complaint filed by the
petitioner in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi was
registered as Complaint Case No.C1/1127 of 2011 and the same was
transferred to the court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,
Sitamarhi Sadar under Section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for enquiry .
complaint petition of Complaint Case
No.C1/1127 of 2011 is annexed
-4-
ANNEXURE- “1” for identification
forming part of this petition.
5. That, it is stated that during the course of enquiry , the
petitioner was examined on solemn affirmation and he fully supported to
prosecution version as spelt out in the complaint petition.
A true photo stat copy of the S.A. of
the petitioner is annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE- “2” for

identification forming part of this
petition.
6. That, it is stated that on behalf of the prosecution during the
course of enquiry three witnesses were examined such as Ram Janam Singh
, Govind Kumar and Nathuni Rai , who have also fully supported the
prosecution version as spelt out in the complaint petition.
True photo stat copies of the
deposition of witnesses are annexed
ANNEXURE- “3 series” for
petition.
7. That, it is stated that the petitioner had also produced the copy
of the requisition filed by the petitioner before the Copying Department for
-5-
obtaining the certified copy of the relevant documents on 12.08.2011
bearing Requisition No.1731 , 1732 and 1733 before the learned trial court.
True photo stat copies of the
Requisition Nos. 1731, 1732 , 1733
dated 12.08.2011 are annexed
ANNEXURE- “4 series” for

petition.
8. That, it is stated the petitioner had also produced the copy of
the bond dated 23.08.2011 by which the petitioner and other witnesses
were released from the custody of the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 on the
undertaking that they did not enter in the Record Room –cum- Copying
Section in future before the learned court below . The said bond was
obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act under memo
no.24 dated 01.02.2012.
A true photo stat copy of the memo
no.24 dated 01.02.2012 along with
bond dated 23.02.2011 is annexed
-6-
9. That, from perusal of ANNEXURE- 4 series and ANNEXURE-
5 it is apparently clear that the petitioner had applied for certified copy of
some of documents before the Copying Section of the Collectorate on
12 .08.2011 but till 23.08.2011 the certified copy of the same was not
supplied to the petitioner and when the petitioner along with the witnesses
visited the office of Copying Section to enquire about the position of the
supply of the certified copy then the Opposite-party no.3 misbehaved with
the petitioner and the witnesses and also kept under the custody and after
taking bond released them with the warning that they did not visit the
Copying Section in future for any work.
10. That, it is true that the Opposite-parties are the public
servant ,therefore, it is duty bound to discharge their public duties as
assigned to them but they did not discharge their public duties and when the
petitioner visited their office to remind their responsibilities and duties
vested in them then they abused and threatened the petitioner and the
witnesses as also to take the petitioner and witnesses in custody to teach the
lesson to them in abuse of the power .
11. That, it is also the fact on record that the requisition has been
filed by the petitioner for supply of the certified copy on 12.08.2011 and
till 23.08.2011 no copy was supplied to the petitioner and when the
petitioner enquired about the same then the petitioner was abused and kept
in custody which shows the abuse of the power vested in the public servant.
-7-
12. That, it is stated that the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate has been pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the petitioner
merely on the ground that the Opposite-parties are the public
servant ,therefore, they are protected by the provisions of Section 197 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure without taking into consideration of the
evidences of the witnesses as also the documentary evidences produced by
the petitioner on record .

13. That, it is settled law that if there is sufficient evidence on the
record that the public servants are misusing their powers in discharge of the
public duties , they are liable to be prosecuted under the Act and in the
present case there is sufficient documentary and oral evidence on
record ,therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside .
14. That, in view of the aforesaid facts the impugned order passed
by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi , Sadar is fit
to be set aside .
dated 29.08.2012 passed by Sri Awadhesh Kumar
, the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar in Complaint Case
No. C1/1127 of 2011 , the above named
petitioner begs to prefer this revision application
on amongst the other following
-8-
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi is bad in law as well as
on facts .
II. For that, while dismissing the complaint petition filed by the
petitioner ,the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the requisition
was filed by the petitioner for supplying the certified copy of the documents
in the Copying Section on 12.08.2011 but no copy was supplied till
22.08.2011 and when the petitioner and witnesses go before the Opposite-
party no.3 to know about the position ,then the Opposite-party no.3 abused
the petitioner and the witnesses as also put in custody .
III. For that, while dismissing the complaint petition filed by the
petitioner ,the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that all the witnesses
as well as the petitioner fully supported the prosecution version as spelt out
in the complaint petition .
IV. For that, while dismissing the complaint petition filed by the
petitioner ,the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the allegation
made by the petitioner in the complaint petition was fully supported by the
documentary evidences as produced before the Court.
V. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
Magistrate ought to have considered that since the Opposite-parties are the
Government Servant ,therefore, they are protected by Section 197 of the
-9-
Code of Criminal Procedure even though they misused and abused their
power and committed wrong in discharge of public duties .
VI. For that , the order passed by the learned Magistrate is
illegal , improper and the same is fit to be set aside.
VII. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
the parties be further pleased to set aside the
order dated 29.08.2012 passed by Sri Awadhesh
Kumar , the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar in Complaint Case
No. C1/1127 of 2011 and direct the learned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar to proceed
against the Opposite-parties .
A N D/ OR

( PETITIONER IN JAIL )
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2013.
Section 53 OF THE Juvenile Justice (
Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Minku Kumar Pandey ,son of Akhilesh Kumar Pandey , resident of
village- Bhagadwa ,Tola- Uttim Pandey , P.S. Majhaulia , District – West
Champaran .
……………………(Accused) PETITIONER.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar. ………….…….………………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,
Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Her
-2-
the above named petitioner ;
1. That, the petitioner namely Minku Kumar Pandey ,who is
innocent but he has been falsely implicated in a case under Sections
20/22/23/24/27A/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act in Gopalpur P.S. Case No.48 of
2012 and the petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice
Board , Bettiah, West Champaran on . .201 and after that the
petitioner moved before the learned Principal Magistrate ,Juvenile Justice
Board , Bettiah , West Champaran for bail in Case No. J.J.B. Tr. No.223 of
2013 in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No.48 of 2012 but the same
has been rejected on 25.05.2013 and the petitioner preferred appeal but the
said appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge , West
Champaran , Bettiah vide judgment and order dated 28.06.2013 in
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2013.
2. That, the petitioner has not come to this Hon'ble Court earlier
against the order dated 28.06.2013 passed in Cr. Appeal No.56 of 2013.
3. That, the prosecution case ,in brief, is that on 22.04.2012 at
about 8.15 A.M. , S.I. Kiran Shankar ,who happened to be Officer-in-
Charge of Gopalpur P.S. along with other police personnel reached near
Dhodhai Bridge and saw one Motor Cycle was coming from north on which
he stopped the Motorcycle.
-3-
4. That, he further stated that during in course of search he
found one plastic bag and one sock and when the informant asked about the
bags then the accused persons stated that there is Ganja and Charas kept in
the bags.
5. That, he further stated that in the presence of independent
witnesses namely Dhanai Sah and Hira Lal Sah searched the bags and
two bundles of Ganja and fourteen packets of Charas respectively both
weighing 10 Kg and 14 Kg respectively.
6. That, in course of query the accused persons disclosed their
names as Ruddu Pandey @ Vijit Kumar Pandey and Minku Pandey and
they disclosed the alleged contrabands belongs to one Kof Sharif Gaddi
and said Kof Sharif Gaddi handed over the contrabands to the accused
persons at Sikta and said to deliver the contrabands in Bettiah then money
will be given to you.
7. That, the informant asked about the Rajdoot Motorcycle
bearing registration number BR-2B-0294 then co-accused Ruddu Pandey
said that the alleged Motorcycle belongs to him and after that in the
pressure of witnesses the accused persons were arrested .
8. That, on the basis of statement of informant , a case was
instituted and a formal First Information Report was drawn.
The photo copy of the F.I.R. of Gopalpur P.S.
Case No.48 of 2012 is made ANNEXURE- “1” to
-4-
this petition.
9. That, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant
case due to police high handedness .
10. That, the petitioner is student and he has nothing to do with the
seized contrabands.
11. That, in this case mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act has not
been complied.
12. That, the petitioner having got o criminal antecedent .
13. That, in this case co-accused person namely Ruddu Kumar
Pandey @ Vijit Kumar Pandey ,who is similar to the petitioner and has
been granted bail by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra on . .
2013 in Cr. Rev. No. of 2013.
The photo copy of order dated . . 2013
passed in Cr. Rev. No. of 2013 is made
14. That, the petitioner has been rotting in jail since 22.04.2012.
Sri Prem Chandra Gupta the learned Sessions
Judge , West Champaran , Bettiah in Cr. Appeal
No.56 of 2013 affirming the order dated
25.05.2013 passed by the learned Principal
-5-
Magistrate , Juvenile Justice Board , Bettiah , West
Champaran in J.J.B. Tr. No.223 of 2013 , the
revision petition on amongst the other following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the orders passed by the learned courts below is
erroneous and bad on both law and facts .
II. For that, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this case .
III. For that, no tangible evidence has appeared against the
petitioner .
IV. For that, the judgment and order is otherwise bad ,illegal and
unjustified in the fats and circumstances of the case.
be graciously pleased to admit this petition ,issue
notice , call for records and after hearing the
parties set aside the judgment and order dated
28.06.2013 passed in Cr. Appeal No.56 of 2013
and also the order dated 25.05.2013 passed in
J.J.B. Tr. No.223 of 2013 and further be pleased
to enlarge the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction
of the learned Principal Magistrate , Juvenile
-6-
Justice Board , Bettiah , West Champaran in
Gopalpur P.S. Case No.48 of 2012 and further be
pleased to pass such other order or orders as
Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.
And for this ,the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2013.
AND
In the matter of :-
Manish Kumar Jha …………….…………………..…PETITIONER

VERSUS
The State of Bihar ………....……………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,
-2-
Sadar Sitamarhi ,the petitioner preferred appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No.89
of 2011 and during the pendency of the appeal the petitioner was enlarged
on bail .
4. That, it is stated that after enlarge on bail ,the petitioner

appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the learned lower appellate court to
inform him about the outcome of the appeal .
filed by the petitioner was dismissed and judgment and order of the
of the petitioner before the learned trial court could not inform the
petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner could not get knowledge about the said
order.
-3-
6. That, it is stated that when the petitioner contacted the learned
counsel in the second week of July, 2013 ,then he could get knowledge
about the order dated 29.01.2013.
7. That, it is stated that thereafter in the early of third week of
July, 2013 ,he had come at Patna and contacted the learned counsel and
handed over the File to file the present criminal revision application and
accordingly the instant criminal revision application is being filed .
petitioner .

application .
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2013.
AND
In the matter of :-
Manish Kumar Jha , son of Kamal Kant Jha,
Resident of village- Anhari , P.S. Riga ,District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar…… ………….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,

-2-
judgment and order dated 29.01.2013 passed by Sri Hanuman Prasad
Tiwary ,the learned Ad-hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge -4 ,
Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.89 of 2011 whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed
by the petitioner and affirm the judgment and order on the point of
sentence dated 18.08.2011 passed by Sri Awadhesh Kumar ,the learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi in Case No. CI-
1343 of 2006 , Trial No.249 of 2011 , by which the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi has been pleased to
convict the petitioner under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/-.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgments and orders.
3. That, the prosecution case ,in brief , is that complainant Sonu
Devi ,who allegedly claimed herself as legally wedded wife of petitioner ,
filed a complaint petition alleging therein that she has allegedly solemnized
marriage with the petitioner on 22.08.2005 at Janki Mandir , Sitamarhi with
their own volition .
The complainant further alleged that her father –in-law wanted
to take motorcycle as dowry for which he has filed a petition before the
-3-
Superintendent of Police , Sitamarhi and subsequently a verification was
done by the Officer-in-Charge of Riga Police- Station and he submitted his
report saying that complainant along with the petitioner resides after
arranging marriage at Janki Asthan , Sitamarhi.
The complainant further alleged that she and the petitioner
appeared before the Notary Public at Sitamarhi and sworn their respective
affidavits regarding their marriage .
The complainant further alleged that the petitioner took her at
village- Anhari but after some time in course of demand of dowry , she was
tortured and after snatching her ornaments worth Rs.25,000/- she was
dragged out of the house after giving threatening to kill her. She came back
at her Naihar and filed the present complaint in the court against the
petitioner and other accused persons
4. That, it is stated that after institution of the complaint petition ,
the inquiry was made by the court and after inquiry the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi took cognizance against
the petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 498(A) , 379 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
accused persons were summoned for facing trial.
5. That, it is stated thereafter charges were framed under Section
498(A) , 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the petitioner and others and aforesaid charges
-4-
were read over and explained to the petitioner and others. At the time of
framing of the charges , the petitioner and others pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried .
6. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether five
prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution such as
P.W.1 : Dinesh Jha ( father of the complainant )
P.W.2 : Bindu Devi (mother of the complainant )
P.W.3 : Sonu Devi ( Complainant herself )
P.W.4. : Ramchandra Rai
P.W.5 : Braj Bhushan Pd. Yadav
7. That, it is stated that on behalf of the prosecution , apart from
oral evidences , documentary evidence were also produced in support of his
case such as photographs have been marked as Ext. X , S/1, X/2 and X/3
whereas the affidavits of complainant and petitioner have been marked as
Ext. 1 and 1/1 and signature of the complainant on the complaint petition
was marked as Ext.2.

8. That, it is stated that on behalf of Defense Anil Kumar Gupta
was examined as D.W.1 .
9. That, it is stated that on behalf of the defense documentary
evidences were produced to falsify the prosecution versions such as :-
Ext. A : Deposition of Misc. Case No.116 of 2007
-5-
Ext. B : The certificate granted by the Management of Janki Mandir
Sitamarhi
Ext. C : The transfer certificate of Government . Middle School ,
Anhari.
10. That, it is stated that P.W.1 and P.W.2 is the father and mother
of the complainant whereas P.W.3 complainant herself and P.W.5 is the co-
villager ,it means that all the prosecution witnesses are the interested
witnesses ,therefore, their statement are not trustworthy and they gave their
tutored statement only to support the prosecution version.
11. That, it is very surprising that the so-called date of marriage is
22.08.2005 ,which is the month of SHARAVAN and in this month no
marriage could be performed of any Hindu Family.
12. That, it is stated that the complainant P.W.3 claimed that her
marriage was allegedly performed with the petitioner in Janki Mandir ,
Sitamarhi but the certificate granted by the Management of Janki Mandir
(Ext.B) which was issued on the basis of marriage register speaks that no
any marriage was performed in the temple on 22.08.2005 which also
falsifies the prosecution version.
13. That, it is stated that the Transfer Certificate of Government
Middle School (Ext. C) of the petitioner shows that at the time of so-
called marriage ,the petitioner was minor ,therefore, on that ground the so-
called marriage is illegal and void.
-6-
14. That, it is stated that except the so-called affidavit sworn by
the petitioner before the Notary Public no any other document shows that
the marriage of the complainant was performed with the petitioner and its
genuineness is also doubtful since the prosecution has failed to establish
that the said affidavit sworn by the petitioner is genuine .
15. That, it is stated that the defense witness D.W.1 Anil Kumar
Gupta deposed before the Court that the photograph which have been
submitted by the complainant regarding the marriage may be prepared
after enlargement and photographs of other persons.
Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi has been pleased to convict the petitioner
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- disbelieving the
genuine and valid documents produced on behalf of the defense and relying
upon the affidavit sworn by the petitioner before the Notary Public and
photograph which is not the reliable documents .

A certified copy of the judgment and
order dated 18.08.2011 is annexed
-7-
Sadar Sitamarhi ,the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal which was
registered as Cr. Appeal No.89 of 2011 and during the pendency of appeal,
the petitioner was released on bail .
18. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal filed by the
petitioner was finally heard by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
Judge -4, Sitamarhi ,who was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirm the order passed by the learned trial court.
19. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
available on record ,the impugned orders are fit to be set aside.
20. That, after passing the appellate order, the petitioner

surrendered in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate ,Sitamarhi Sadar on 11.09.2013 in this regard surrender slip
was issued .
surrender slip dated 11.09.2013 is
Sri Hanuman Prasad Tiwary ,the learned Ad-hoc
Additional District & Sessions Judge-4, Sitamarhi
in Cr. Appeal No.89of 2011 as also the judgment
and order 18.08.2011 passed by Sri Awadhesh
Kumar learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi in Case No. CI-
1343/2006 , Trial No.249 of 2011 the above
GROUNDS:
-8-
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
as well as appellate court is bad in law as well as on facts.
II. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that there is serious
contradiction in between the statement of the prosecution witnesses before
the learned trial court .
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to examine the independent witnesses and all the witnesses are
interested witness and co-related with each other .
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the Management of
the Janki Mandir where the marriage of the petitioner and the complainant
was performed on 22.08.2005 granted certificate (Ext.B ) that on
22.08.2005 no marriage of any person was performed in the premises of
temple as per the register of marriage .
V. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that at the time of so-
called marriage the petitioner was minor which is evident from the Transfer
Certificate ( Ext. C) ,therefore, any marriage is void and illegal.
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the D.W.1 in his
-9-
deposition deposed that the photograph which have been submitted by the
complainant regarding the marriage may be prepared after enlargement
and photographs of other person .
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court ought to have disbelieved the documents as
produced on behalf of the petitioner and relied upon the affidavit sworn by
the petitioner before the Notary Public which is also a manufactured
document since it was not proved by the prosecution as a valid and genuine
document .
VIII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the so-called date of
marriage i.e. 22.08.2005 is the month of SHARAVAN and in this month no
marriage could be performed of any Hindu Family .

IX. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
appellate court are allowed to be continued ,it will amount to miscarriage of
justice.
X. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
facts and fit to be set aside.
graciously be pleased to admit this application,
issue notice to the opposite-party ,call for the
records of the learned court below and after
-10-
the judgment and order dated 29.01.2013
passed by Sri Hanuman Prasad Tiwary ,the
learned Ad-hoc Additional District & Sessions
Judge-4, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.89of 2011
as also the judgment and order 18.08.2011 passed
by Sri Awadhesh Kumar learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi in Case
No. CI-1343/2006 , Trial No.249 of 2011 .
AND/OR

AN D
During the pendency of this revision
application ,the petitioner be released on bail as
also to stay the order of fine to the satisfaction of
the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,
Sadar Sitamarhi.
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2013.
AND
In the matter of :-
Subodh Kumar Singh ………….…………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and others ..……………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
3. That, it is stated that the learned Presiding Officer of Special
Lok Adalat , Vaishali at Hajipur passed the impugned order dated
27.11.2009 passed in Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.197 of 2004 ex-parte i.e.
without hearing the petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner has got no
knowledge about the said case .

4. That, it is stated that at the first time on 14.04.2013 ,the
petitioner could heard the rumour that the accused persons are left free from
the charges then he immediately enquired the matter and found that his
protest petition has already been rejected by the impugned order dated
27.11.2009.
5. That, it is stated that the petitioner had filed a requisition for
supply of the service reports of summon on 23.04.2013 and 04.05.2013
then an information was supplied that the service report has not been
received in the office.
petitioner .
-3-
application .
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2013.
AND
In the matter of :-
Subodh Kumar Singh , son of Sri Hari Keshwar Singh ,
Resident of village- Subhai South Tola , P.S. Sadar Hajipur ,District –
Vaishali at Hajipur , presently residing at Mohalla- Gandhi Ashram , P.S.
Hajipur Town ,District – Vaishali at Hajipur.
VERSUS
2. Om Prakash Singh ,son of Sri Hari Keshwar Singh ,
3. Sushil Kumar Singh ,son of Sri Om Prakash Singh ,
4. Sunil Kumar Singh ,son of Sri Om Prakash Singh ,
All resident of village- Subhai South Tola , P.S. Sadar Hajipur
,District – Vaishali at Hajipur.
….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
1. That, this application on behalf of the petitioner above is for
setting aside the order dated 27.11.2009 passed in Hajipur Sadar P.S.
Case No.197 of 2004 by the learned Presiding Officer of Special Lok
Adalat , Vaishali at Hajipur , whereby and where under the protest petition
filed by the petitioner was rejected and accept the final form submitted by
the Investigating Officer and also directed to deposit the records in the
Record Room.
or before the learned Sessions Judge , Vaishali at Hajipur earlier against the
3. That, the petitioner had filed a complaint petition before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Vaishali at Hajipur on 11.05.2004
stating therein that the accused No.1 Om Prakash Singh (Opposite-party
no.1 ) ,who is the own brother of the petitioner and other accused persons
-3-
are son of the accused no.1 and he had purchased a Truck bearing Reg.
No. WGA-6343 in the year 1989 .
The petitioner further said that after purchase , he came to
his house and after two days the Opposite-party no.2 came to his house and
in present of the parents and brother the Opposite-party no.2 requested the
petitioner to handover the truck for its running to him on yearly Rs.72,000/-
as also the maintenance and taxes will be born by the Opposite-party no.2.
The petitioner further said that the Opposite-party no.2 had
paid only Rs.1 Lac to him till date and the Opposite-party no.2 did not pay
Rs.18-19 Lacs even after repeated request made by the petitioner and only
assurances has been given that the income of truck has been invested in
business and its profit as well as the share of the property will be given to
him which was earned from the income of the truck. Since the Opposite-
party no.2 is the own brother of the petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner
believed on the assurance of the Opposite-party no.2.

The petitioner further said that he received an information
that the Opposite-party no.2 in connivance with Opposite-party nos. 3 and 4
manufactured a forged signature on a partner-sheep deed in the name of
younger brother of the petitioner namely Manoj Singh in the year 1993 and
also kept Manoj Singh in dark.
The petitioner further said that from the said income , the
Opposite-party no.2 possessed the property in the name of her wife and
-4-
when he asked share from the accused persons then the accused persons in
connivance with the other kidnapped the son of the petitioner namely
Saurav Kumar on 18.05.2013 for which Town P.S. Case No.275 of 2013
was instituted .
The petitioner further said that the accused persons threatened
him to keep mum.
4. That, it is stated that the aforesaid complaint filed by the
petitioner was registered as Complaint Case No.1103 of 2004 and the
same was sent to the concerned Police- Station under Section -156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for institution of First Information Report and
investigation of the case.
5. That, it is stated that after receipt of the aforesaid complaint ,
Hajipur Sadar Police drew up a formal First Information Report and
registered a case being Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.197 of 2004 dated
18.05.2004 attributing offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B/34
of the Indian Penal Code .
Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.197 of
-5-
Report ,the police proceeded with the investigation and the Investigating
Officer in connivance with the accused persons submitted final form
against the accused persons under Section 406, 420, 467 , 406 ,120(B) /34
Indian Penal Code saying civil dispute vide Final Form No.280 of 2004
dated 09.10.2004.
Final Form No.280 of 2004 dated
marked as ANNEXURE- “2” for
petition.
7. That, it is pertinent to mention here that prior to submission of
the Final Form seeing the conduct of the Investigating Officer of the case ,
the petitioner filed a protest petition in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate on 28.06.2004.
A true photo stat copy of the protest
petition dated 28.06.2004 is annexed
-6-
8. That, it is stated that vide order dated 24.11.2004,the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Vaishali at Hajipur issued notice to the
petitioner for fixing the date 02.06.2005 but the said notice was not served
to the petitioner and thereafter no summons were issued to the petitioner
for his appearance.
order-sheet maintained by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Vaishali at
Hajipur is annexed herewith and
petition.
9. That, it is stated that since no summons were served to the
petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner could not appear before the learned
court below.
10. That, it appears that since the matter is pending since
long ,therefore, the case was sent to the Special Lok Adalat but the Special
Lok Adalat prior to passing the impugned order , no notice was sent either to
the petitioner or to the accused persons for their appearance and sue- motto
passed the impugned order dated 27.11.2009 that since Investigating Officer
had submitted final form or saying civil dispute ,therefore, the protest
petition filed by the petitioner was rejected.
-7-
11. That, it is that the petitioner has got no knowledge about the
impugned order dated 27.11.2009 and when the petitioner could rumour
that the accused persons are left free from the cases then he enquired the
case then found that his protest petition has already been rejected by the
12. That, it is stated that immediately after knowledge the petitioner
had filed a requisition for supply of the certified copy of Vakalatnama of
informant and accused persons as also the service report of summons upon
which on the back of requisition ,the information was supplied that the
Vakalatnama was not filed on behalf of the accused persons and summons
were not served to the appellant .

requisition dated 23.04.2013 is
forming part of this petition
13. That, it is stated that the petitioner also filed a requisition to
supply the service report upon which the office had supplied an information
that the service report has not been received in the office.
requisition dated 04.05.2013 is
-8-
14. That, it is stated that since the impugned order has been passed
by the learned Presiding Officer of the Special Lok Adalat without hearing
the parties ,therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order is fit to be set
aside.
15. That, it is stated that if the accused persons are left free from
the said charges ,which is miscarriage of justice with the petitioner and
abuse of the process of the court of law since in future the accused persons
will repeat such offence again.

by the Presiding Officer of the Special Lok Adalat is fit to be set aside .
dated 27.11.2009 passed in Hajipur Sadar P.S.
Case No.197 of 2004 by the learned Presiding
Officer of Special Lok Adalat , Vaishali at
Hajipur , the above named petitioner begs
other following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding
Officer of Special Lok Adalat is bad in law as well as on facts .
-9-
Presiding Officer of Special Lok Adalat is failed to comply the principles
of NATURAL JUSTICE , since it was passed without giving opportunity of
hearing to the parties.
Presiding Officer of Special Lok Adalat is failed to appreciate that since
the petitioner had already filed a protest petition against the police
investigation ,therefore, prior to acceptance of Final Report submitted by the
police , the learned Magistrate should have notice to the respective parties
prior to coming any conclusion but the learned Magistrate did not do so .
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
Presiding Officer of Special Lok Adalat is failed to appreciate that the Lok
Adalat was constituted only for the purposes to settle the issue on the
consent of both the parties but in the present case notices were not issued to
either of the parties.
Presiding Officer of Special Lok Adalat is failed to appreciate that on the
material there is sufficient material on record against the accused persons
for commission of the criminal offences .
VI. For that , the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of
the Special Lok Adalat is illegal , improper and the same is fit to be set
aside.
-10-
VII. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
the parties be further pleased to set aside the
order dated 27.11.2009 passed in Hajipur Sadar
P.S. Case No.197 of 2004 by the learned

Presiding Officer of Special Lok Adalat , Vaishali
at Hajipur.
A N D/ OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2013.
Section 53 OF THE Juvenile Justice (
Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Ruddu Kumar Pandey @ Vijit Kumar Pandey ,son of Narendra Kumar
Pandey , resident of village- Bhagadwa ,Tola- Uttim Pandey , P.S.
Majhaulia , District – West Champaran .
……………………(Accused) PETITIONER.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar. ………….…….………………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,
-2-
the above named petitioner ;
1. That, the petitioner namely Ruddu Pandey @ Vijit Kumar
Pandey ,who is innocent but he has been falsely implicated in a case under
Sections 20/22/23/24/27A/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act in Gopalpur P.S. Case
No.48 of 2012 and the petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile
Justice Board , Bettiah, West Champaran on 20.07.2012 and after that the
petitioner moved before the learned Principal Magistrate ,Juvenile Justice
Board , Bettiah , West Champaran for bail in Case No. J.J.B. Tr. No.285 of
2012 in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No.48 of 2012 but the same
has been rejected on 27.07.2012 and the petitioner preferred appeal but the
said appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge , West
Champaran , Bettiah vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2012 in
Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2012.
against the order dated 18.12.2012 passed in Cr. Appeal No.93 of 2012.
3. That, the prosecution case ,in brief, is that on 22.04.2012 at
about 8.15 A.M. , S.I. Kiran Shankar ,who happened to be Officer-in-
Charge of Gopalpur P.S. along with other police personnel reached near
-3-
Dhodhai Bridge and saw one Motor Cycle was coming from north on which
he stopped the Motorcycle.
4. That, he further stated that during in course of search he
found one plastic bag and one sock and when the informant asked about the
bags then the accused persons stated that there is Ganja and Charas kept in
the bags.
5. That, he further stated that in the presence of independent
witnesses namely Dhanai Sah and Hira Lal Sah searched the bags and
two bundles of Ganja and fourteen packets of Charas respectively both
weighing 10 Kg and 14 Kg respectively.
6. That, in course of query the accused persons disclosed their
names as Ruddu Pandey @ Vijit Kumar Pandey and Minku Pandey and
they disclosed the alleged contrabands belongs to one Kof Sharif Gaddi
and said Kof Sharif Gaddi handed over the contrabands to the accused
persons at Sikta and said to deliver the contrabands in Bettiah then money
will be given to you.
7. That, the informant asked about the Rajdoot Motorcycle
bearing registration number BR-2B-0294 then co-accused Ruddu Pandey
said that the alleged Motorcycle belongs to him and after that in the
pressure of witnesses the accused persons were arrested .
-4-
8. That, on the basis of statement of informant , a case was
instituted and a formal First Information Report was drawn.
The photo copy of the F.I.R. of
Gopalpur P.S. Case No.48 of 2012 is
made ANNEXURE- “1” to this
petition.
9. That, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant
case due to police high handedness .
10. That, the petitioner is student and he has nothing to do with the
seized contrabands.
11. That, in this case mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act has not
been complied.
12. That, the petitioner having got o criminal antecedent .
13. That, the petitioner has been rotting in jail since 22.04.2012.
Sri Prem Chandra Gupta the learned Sessions
Judge , West Champaran , Bettiah in Cr. Appeal
No.93 of 2012 affirming the order dated
27.07.2012 passed by the learned Principal
Magistrate , Juvenile Justice Board , Bettiah , West
Champaran in J.J.B. Tr. No.285 of 2012 , the

-5-
revision petition on amongst the other following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the orders passed by the learned courts below is
erroneous and bad on both law and facts .
II. For that, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this case .
III. For that, no tangible evidence has appeared against the
petitioner during course of investigation .
IV. For that, the judgment and order is otherwise bad ,illegal and
unjustified in the fats and circumstances of the case.
be graciously pleased to admit this petition ,issue
notice , call for records and after hearing the
parties set aside the judgment and order dated
18.12.2012 passed in Cr. Appeal No.93 of 2012
and also the order dated 27.07.2012 passed in
J.J.B. Tr. No.285 of 2012 and further be pleased
to enlarge the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction
of the learned Principal Magistrate , Juvenile
Justice Board , Bettiah , West Champaran in
-6-
Gopalpur P.S. Case No.48 of 2012 and further be
pleased to pass such other order or orders as
Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.
And for this ,the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
I.A. NO.________________________/ OF 2013.(Withdrawal )
IN
Cr. Rev. NO.___1007______________/OF 2009.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Anil Kumar Singh ………….…………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and others ..……………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
the petitioner above named for withdrawal of the aforesaid Criminal
Revision No.1007 of 2009 which was admitted by this Hon'ble Court and
the petitioner of this revision application is poor person and he resides
outside the State for his livelihood and he does not want to proceed with
the case and after being advised by the well wisher of the petitioner and the
Opposite-parties also and on being amicable settlement outside the court
at village level , the petitioner wants to withdraw the case as per his own
will.
Lordships may graciously be pleased to grant
permission to withdraw the Criminal Revision
No.1007 of 2009 .
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2013.
Act, 1984 ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Kundan Kumar , son of Late Anant Lal Prasad ,
Resident of village- Sarobag, P.S. Dharhara , District – Munger.
VERSUS
2. Soni Devi, wife of Kundan Kumar and daughter of Manohar Tanti ,
Resident of village- Bari Aashikpur (Bishari Asthan ) , P.O. Jamalpur ,
P.S. East Colony, District – Munger.
To,
-2-
dated 09.11.2012 passed in Maintenance Case No.37(M) of 2012 by
learned Principal Judge , Family Court, Munger , whereby and where under
the amount of Rs.3,000/- was directed to be paid to the Opposite-party no.2
without considering the grounds or plea taken by the petitioner filed in the
aforesaid matrimonial case no.37(M) of 2012. .

3. That, the Opposite-party no.2 has filed a maintenance case
no.37(M) of 2012 before the learned Principal Judge , Family Court ,
Munger stating therein that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized
on 20.05.2009 with the Opposite-party no.2 and thereafter she went to her
matrimonial house and after some time the in-laws of the Opposite-party
no.2 started to demand Rs.1 Lac to construct his house upon which the
Opposite-party no.2 said her parent inability to pay such type of huge
amount . Thereafter she gave birth to a male child namely Nishant. It is
further alleged in the said petition that the petitioner carried to the
-3-
Opposite-party no.2 to his own house after pacifying the matter in between
the parties . Thereafter she became pregnant later on but the in-laws of the
Opposite-party no.2 started repeated demand of the said amount as well as
she was being assaulted and lastly on 30.06.2011 she was driven out from
her matrimonial house and consequently a complaint case bearing Case
No.694C of 2011 was lodged and she gave birth to another female child
namely Divya at her Maike and there is no any other source of income of
the Opposite-party no.2 and she claimed as her maintenance amount of
Rs.10,000/- per month because the petitioner runs the flour mill and he
earns Rs.20,000/- per month and accordingly the learned Principal Judge
has passed the impugned order without considering the material aspects of
the petitioner .
Maintenance Case No.37( M) of 2012
4. That, the petitioner appeared in the said matrimonial case and
filed his rejoinder and he categorically asserted that he is an unemployed
person and after the death of his father , the birth of the petitioner became
separate in all respect and the mother of the petitioner is an old lady and
she is spending her life on his pension amount only . The petitioner became
helpless and when the maintenance case was instituted by the Opposite-
-4-
party no.2 ,the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act but the Opposite-party no.2 did not ready to reside with the
petitioner because he is totally unable to maintain her wife.
A true photo stat copy of the rejoinder
filed by the petitioner is annexed
5. That, the petitioner is preparing for competitive examination
in his village to get any job for his livelihood . In this way the petitioner is
quite unable to pay the maintenance amount to the Opposite-party no.2.

6. That, the learned Principal Judge has himself mentioned in the
impugned order that neither the petitioner appeared in the said case nor a
lawyer on his behalf also appeared.
7. That, in the impugned order it has been mentioned that it is also
not pleaded the petitioner has own source of income and the Opposite-party
no.2 has denied the allegation made in the petition itself but the learned
Principal Judge has not discussed the contention of the petition filed by the
petitioner in the impugned order itself and simply the learned Principal
Judge has concluded the order and directed the petitioner to pay altogether
the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opposite-party no.2. It is very
much surprising to mention here that the learned Principal Judge has not
-5-
discussed the point taken by the petitioner in his petition simply the order
of interim maintenance has been passed.
dated 09.11.2012 passed in Maintenance Case
No.37(M) of 2012 by learned Principal Judge ,
Family Court, Munger , the above named
GROUNDS:
Judge is bad in law as well as on facts and the same is quite illegal in the
eye of law .
II. For that, the learned Principal Judge has quietly ignored the
defense of the petitioner as mentioned in his petition as contained in
ANNEXURE- 2.
III. For that, the learned Principal Judge has only focused that
the Opposite-party no.2 has no source of income and undisputedly the two
children and the Opposite-party no.2 is the liability of the petitioner which
is quite illegal in the eye of law .
IV. For that, the learned Principal Judge has fixed the amount of
interim maintenance which is quite disproportionate and the learned
Principal Judge has erred in passing the impugned order.
-6-
to be set aside.
the order dated 09.11.2012 passed in

Maintenance Case No.37(M) of 2012 by learned
Principal Judge , Family Court, Munger.
A N D/ OR
A ND
operation of the impugned order dated 09.11.2012
passed in Maintenance Case No.37(M) of 2012
by learned Principal Judge , Family Court,
Munger may kindly be stayed.
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2012.

AND
In the matter of :-
Manoj Das @ Manoj Kumar Das …………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and another ..……………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
revision application in which the limitation has been expired on 05.12.2012
though the said criminal revision has been filed on 07.12.2012 and the
Stamp Reporter has pointed out the defect upon limitation on 11.12.2012 .

3. That, the petitioner handed over the brief at the eleventh hour
to the concerned Advocate but it could not be filed within the period of
limitation due to mistake on the part of the concerned Advocate.
4. That, the concerned Advocate as soon as calculated the period
of filing the criminal revision application in the present case , it could be
filed on 07.12.2012.
petitioner as well as the concerned.
application .
-3-
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2012.
Act, 1984 ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Manoj Das, son of Late Saryug Das ,
Resident of Mohalla- Nayagaon , P.S. East Colony , District – Munger.
VERSUS
2. Kiran Devi, wife of Manoj Das , daughter of Sri Fanindra Das @ Fulo
Das , resident of village- Gandhipur , P.S. Bariyarpur ,District – Munger.
To,
-2-
dated 27.08.2012 passed in Case No.104( Maint) of 2010 by learned Sri
Jitendra Kumar, the Principal Judge , Family Court, Munger , whereby and
where under the learned Principal Judge has passed an order to pay
altogether Rs.3,500/- including the earlier interim maintenance of
Rs.1,500/- which he is already paying as per the order of this Hon'ble
Court since the date of filing of the petition dated 07.12.2010 by the
Opposite-party no.2 . The petitioner was also directed to pay a lump-sump
of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost to the Opposite-party no.2.

3. That, the Opposite-party no.2 filed a petition under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 07.12.2010 for her maintenance
though it is quite illegal and frivolous because she earlier lodged a
complaint case against her in-laws including the petitioner for offence
under Section 498A , 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/ 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act in which it is said that on 14.07.1997 marriage
-3-
was solemnized with the petitioner and it is further alleged that a
Motorcycle along with Rs.2 Lacs were also demanded by them and on
being tortured by her in-laws family .On the other hand the petitioner has
contested and said that the Opposite-party no.2 has never lived with him
despite his request and she has illicit relation with her villager and marriage
between the parties dissolved by the Panchayat in the year 2001 itself.
Though the complaint case was filed in the year 2009 against the petitioner
and his family members . Inspite of this ,the petitioner became ready to
keep the Opposite-party no.2.
4. That, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground
as a routine Clerk due to death of his father .When he was unemployed ,the
Opposite-party no.2 herself left the matrimonial house and she has some
illicit relationship with her villager and a Panchayati was also made and she
flatly denied to live with the petitioner and on that point of time ,the
petitioner was released on anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No.12293 of 2011
passed on 19th April,2011 but this Hon'ble Court at the time of passing the
order ,the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the
complainant –Opposite-party no.2 from May, 2011 but herein this case the
learned Principal Judge , Family Court , Munger passed the order to pay
the maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month including the aforesaid
Rs.1,500/- since the date of filing of the petition dated 07.12.2010 ,it is clear
cut violation of the order passed in Cr. Misc. No.12293 of 2011 on dated
-4-
19.04.2011 , though the Opposite-party no.2 with the greedy eyes ,
suddenly desired to live with the petitioner and having seen no scope ,
then he filed a Maintenance Case No.104M of 2010 whereas the petitioner
has joined the service .
19.04.2011 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.12293 of 2011 is annexed
5. That, in the order of appointment vide memo no.3042 dated
24.08.2007 , the appointing authority as per instruction of the Government
as well as the Circular regarding compassionate appointment directed to
follow the terms and conditions such as to maintain the dependants of the
deceased employee and the petitioner having got his salary maintained the
dependant of his father such as brother , sisters and the loan taken by the
petitioner in the marriage of his sister is being refunded till now and a huge
amount of portion of the salary is being deducted against the loan taken by
the petitioner . In this way the petitioner is quite unable to pay the
enhanced maintenance passed in the impugned order . If the petitioner fails
to maintain the dependants of the deceased employees ,it is possible that
the petitioner can be ousted from the service. Note even only the petitioner
-5-
ultimately ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 and a legal and genuine
proportion is being paid to the Opposite-party no.2.
6. That, so far the submission advances on behalf of the
Opposite-party no.2 that the mother of the petitioner herself a pensioner
but the pension amount is so meager that it cannot be sufficient to maintain
herself . On the contrary the petitioner expended in the treatment of her
mother as well as the family members . In this way , that claim of the
Opposite-party no.2 is not sustainable in the eye of law as well as the
factual circumstances of the petitioner .
7. That, so far litigation cost of lump-sump amount of
Rs.10,000/- is also unreasonable and irrational because in the family court
as well as the petition filed by the Opposite-party no.2 did not spend 1/4 th
amount of Rs.10,000/-.
dated 27.08.2012 passed in Case No.104( Maint)
of 2010 by learned Sri Jitendra Kumar, the
Principal Judge , Family Court, Munger , the
following
GROUNDS:
-6-
Judge is bad in law as well as on facts and the same is quite illegal in the
eye of law .
II. For that, the petitioner factually a Government Servant but
he was appointed on compassionate ground and he is duty bound to
maintain the dependant of the deceased employee and the proportion of
maintenance amount is sufficient and genuine.
III. For that, the learned Principal Judge has erred in passing the
impugned order that maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- ass per the direction
by this Hon'ble Court has to be paid since May,2011 but after being
misconceived the learned Principal Judge has passed the order and directed
the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,500/- including the earlier amount
Rs.1,500/- as per direction of this Hon'ble Court since the date of filing of
the petition dated 07.12.2010 which is quite illegal in the eye of law as well
as the clear cut violation of the order of this Hon'ble Court and it causes
the irreparable loss to the petitioner .
IV. For that, the learned Principal Judge has also failed to
appreciate the financial condition of the petitioner and the petitioner was
directed to pay a lump-sump amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost
which is quite illegal in both way.
to be set aside.
-7-
the order dated 27.08.2012 passed in Case
No.104( Maint) of 2010 by learned Sri Jitendra
Kumar, the Principal Judge , Family Court,
Munger.
A N D/ OR

A ND
passed in Case No.104( Maint) of 2010 by
learned Sri Jitendra Kumar, the Principal Judge ,
Family Court, Munger may kindly be stayed.
I.A. No._____________________/ OF 2012.
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._____1039____________/OF 2010.
AND
In the matter of :-
Hiramati Devi, wife of Late Dhanpat Tiwary,
Resident of village- Baraki Nainijore , P.S. Brahmpur ( Nainijore) , District-
Buxar.
VERSUS
2. Pradosh Tiwary, son of Late Parabhu Tiwary,
3. Rabindra Tiwary , son of Pradash Tiwary,
4. Shankar Tiwary, son of Pradosh Tiwary,
-2-
All resident of village and P.O. Baraki Nainijore , P.S.
Nainijore , District- Buxar
…….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,

1. That, the petitioner has filed the aforesaid case before the
Hon'ble High Court to set aside the order passed by the A.D.J. , F.T. Court-
V , Buxar dated 02.07.2010 in Sessions Trial No.219 of 1998 and direct the
learned court below to issue process under Section 82, 83 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for procuring the attendance of the informant and the
Investigating Officer in the aforesaid case.
2. That, in the aforesaid case one of the Opposite-party (accused )
no.3 namely Rabindra Tiwary son of Pradash Tiwary as dead and after the
death of the accused person the case abates against him .
3. That, the name of the Opposite-party no.3 may be deleted from
the record of the case because he is dead.
-3-
4. That, for the ends of justice , the name of the Opposite-party
no.3 may be deleted from the record of the case.
It is ,therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may
be pleased to allow this application and the name
of the Opposite-party no.3 may be deleted from
the record of the case or/pass such order or orders
as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2012.

AND
In the matter of :-
Mina Kumari ,wife of Shyam Sundar Singh @ Sunil Singh ,
Resident of village- Morsand , P.S. Runnisaidpur , District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Satish Chandra Srivastava , son of Sidheshwari Sharan ,
Resident of Ward No.8 , Holding No.388, 381 Cinema Road, Gopalganj,
P.S. Gopalganj , District – Gopalganj , the Program Officer, Sitamarhi,
District – Sitamarhi.
To,

-2-
1. That, this application on behalf of the petitioner above is for
setting aside the order dated 06.09.2012 passed in Complaint Case
No. C-I/421 of 2011 by Sri Awadhesh Kumar, the learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate , Sadar , Sitamarhi, whereby and where under the
learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi was pleased
to dismiss the complaint filed by the petitioner and also to direct the learned
court below to proceed with the complaint against the Opposite-party no.2.
or before the learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi earlier against the
impugned order dated 06.09.2012 .
3. That, the prosecution case as spelt out in the complaint petition
filed by the petitioner in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,
Sitamarhi , in brief is that, she is posted as an Aanganwari Sevika of Centre
No.132 under village- Morsand and on 15.11.2011 at about 2 P.M. , the
accused Opposite-party no.2 , Program Officer came at the Panchayat
Bhawan and asked about the irregularities committed in Take Home
Ration Scheme . The Opposite-party no.2 told her to give Rs.1,000/- per
-3-
month and he has also demanded Rs.5,000/- at once then the petitioner
opposed about it then the Opposite-party no.2 became angry and started to
abuse her .
The petitioner further said that she made warning to the
Opposite-party no.2 then the Opposite-party no.2 assaulted her and abused
in filthy language . The Opposite-party no.2 also torn her clothes and
thereafter he went away after taking some registers of the Centre .
The petitioner further said that she went at the Runnisaidpur
Police- Station but the police refused to lodge the case then she filed the
instant complaint case.
4. That, the aforesaid complaint filed by the petitioner was
registered as Complaint Case No.C-I/421 of 2011 under Sections 384,
385,379,323, 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was
transferred to the court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate ,Sitamarhi Sadar .
No.C-I/421 of 2011 is annexed
5. That, it is stated that after institution of the complaint case, the
petitioner was examined on solemn affirmation and the petitioner fully

-4-
supported the prosecution version on solemn affirmation as spelt out in the
complaint petition.
6. That, it is stated that on behalf of the prosecution, five
prosecution witnesses namely Pranit Kumar , Kamini Devi, Pinki Devi and
Nagina Das were examined under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and they have fully supported the prosecution version as spelt out
in the complaint petition.
True photo stat/ typed copies of the
statement of enquiry witnesses are
ANNEXURE- “2” series to this
application.
7. That, it is stated that when the Opposite-party no.2 demanded
Rs.500/- per month as also at once for payment of Rs.5,000/- as bribe in the
name of so-called irregularities though there was no irregularities at the
Centre of petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner opposed the misdeeds of the
Opposite-party no.2 and she flatly refused to make payment of the said
bribe upon which the Opposite-party no.2 misbehaved with the petitioner
and in defense the Opposite-party no.2 lodged a false case against the
husband of the petitioner namely Sunil Kumar Singh in Runnisaidpur
Police- Station being Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.128 of 2011 ,

-5-
8. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 lodged
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.128 of 2011 against the husband of the petitioner
when the Opposite-party no.2 had apprehension that the petitioner might
have lodged case or made complaint before the higher Authorities against
him about the offence committed by him with the petitioner .
9. That, it is stated that against the Opposite-party no.2 ,there was
ample material on record for taking cognizance against the Opposite-party
no.2 ,who during the course of discharge of his public duty misused his
official power in the name of enquiry for some unethical gain.
Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by
the petitioner merely on the ground that the Opposite-party no.2 had lodged
a case against the husband of the petitioner as also the Opposite-party no.2
should be protected under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
since the Opposite-party no.2 is a public servant.
11. That, it is stated that against the Opposite-party no.2 there is a
serious charge for demanding bribe and on non-fulfillment of the said bribe
he misbehaved with the petitioner taking the advantage of his post and the
said facts were fully supported by the prosecution witnesses.
12. That, it is stated that if the Opposite-party no.2 is left free from
the said charges ,which is miscarriage of justice with the petitioner and
-6-
abuse of the process of the court of law since in future the Opposite-party
no.2 will repeat such offence.
by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar is fit to
be set aside .
order dated 06.09.2012 passed in Complaint Case
No. C1/421 of 2011 by Sri Awadhesh Kumar , the
learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,
Sadar , Sitamarhi, the above named petitioner
begs to prefer this revision application on amongst
the other following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate is bad in law as well as on facts .
II. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate failed to appreciate that there is serious charges
against the Opposite-party no.2 for demanding bribe and on non-fulfillment
of the said demand ,he misbehaved with the petitioner taking the advantage
of his post .
III. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate failed to appreciate that the petitioner on

-7-
solemn affirmation as well as other prosecution witnesses have fully
supported the prosecution version as spelt out in the complaint petition .
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party
no.2 lodged the case against the husband of the petitioner in self defense
for saving his skin for offence committed by him.
V. For that, while dismissing the complaint petition filed by the
petitioner ,the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the Opposite-
party no.2 misused his power during the course of discharge of his duty for
his unethical gain of bribe and on non-fulfillment of the said bribe he
misbehaved with the petitioner ,therefore, the Opposite-party no.2 could not
be protected under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
VI. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate
is fit to be set aside since it suffers from non-application of judicial mind and
it is passed taking the lenient view that the Opposite-party no.2 is holding
the post of District Program Officer.
VII. For that , the order passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal ,
improper and the same is fit to be set aside.
VIII. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.

-8-
the order dated 06.09.2012 passed in Complaint
Case No. C-I/421 of 2011 by Sri Awadhesh
Kumar the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , Sadar , Sitamarhi.
A N D/ OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2012.
AND
In the matter of :-
1. Sundar Pati Devi, wife of Late Butai Singh ,
2. Sanju Devi, daughter of Late Butai Singh ,
3. Binay Singh @ Binay Kumar Singh, son of Late Butai Singh ,
4. Renu Devi , wife of Binay Kumar Sinha ,
All residents of Mohalla- Indira Nagar( Rajapur ), P.S.
Patliputra , District – Patna.
VERSUS
2. Bibha Bharti , daughter of Nawal Prasad Singh ,
Resident of Mohalla- Sadar Bazar , Jamalpur , P.S. Jamalpur , District –
Munger.
To,
1. That, this criminal revision application is directed against the
order dated 26.04.2012 passed in G.R. Case No.388 of 2001 by learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,Munger by which the petition filed by

the petitioners for recalling the witnesses for their cross examination has
been rejected.
2. That, the petitioners have not moved before this Hon’ble Court
or before the learned Sessions Judge , Munger earlier against the impugned
order .
3. That, the aforesaid case arises out of Jamalpur P.S. Case
No.32 of 2001 in which charge-sheet has been submitted against petitioners
for offence punishable under Sections 498(A) , 323, 324 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after charge trial
proceeded for the allegation of torture and demand of dowry.
-3-
4. That , during the course of trial of the instant criminal case the
evidence of P.W.1 Nawal Prasad Singh father of the Opposite-party
no.2 ,the evidence of P.W.2 Urmila Devi mother of the Opposite-party
no.2 and evidence of P.W.3 Vibha Bharti herself, concluded on 09.12.2005 ,
25.01.2006 and 07.03.2006 respectively . Besides the above evidence of the
Investigating Officer , P.W.7 was recorded on 11.01.2012.
5. That, after the evidence of the above witnesses P.Ws. 1,2, 3
and 7 , several developments took place which were either not within the
knowledge of the petitioner or which happened subsequently which may
be enumerated as follows :-
I. That, the said Matrimonial Case No.56 of 2001 was decreed in
favour of the petitioner from the court of learned Additional
Principal Judge , Family Court, Patna on 09.12.2009.
II. That, the Opposite-party no.2 Bibha Bharti preferred Misc.
Appeal No.26 of 2010 in this Hon'ble Court not against the
decree of divorce but against alimony ,which also was
dismissed as withdrawn on 02.01.2012 . It goes beyond saying
that the decree of Divorce remand final.
III. That, at the time of the hearing of the appeal preferred by
Opposite-party no.2 Vibha Kumari Rs.5 Lacs was demanded
on her behalf for quashing of the instance case.
-4-
IV. That, the Hon'ble Judge of this Hon'ble Court finding the
demand of money made on behalf of the Opposite-party no.2
and after made on behalf of the petitioner unbridgeable
observed –“ The Respondent ,if so advised , may take step in
the criminal case pending against him , now when decree of
divorce between the parties has attained finality , the criminal
court is expected to keep this fact in mind while proceeding
with the case in accordance with law.
V. That, climax of event is that the Opposite-party no.2 Vibha
Kumari got herself married with one Niraj Kumar @ Sitanshu

Kumar son of Bhubneshwar Prasad Singh of village- Pipra ,
P.S. Bath , District - Bhagalpur on 04.06.2002 in the temple of
Baba Baidyanath ( Jharkhand ).
VI. That, in the year 2004 a son was born out of the wedlock with
Niraj Kumar @ Sitanshu Kumar and Vibha Bharti . It also
transpires that the son died within a very short time. Thereafter
Opposite-party no.2 gave birth to a baby in Delhi in the year
2005 out of the same wedlock.
VII. That, the said Niraj Kumar @ Sitanshu Kumar brought a
Matrimonial Case No.190 of 2010 against Opposite-party no.2
Vibha Bharti . Besides her father Nawal Prasad Singh had also
been made Respondent no.2 second party and the accused
-5-
Uday Kumar had also been arrayed as Respondent no.2 , third
party in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bhagalpur on 19.07.2010.
VIII. That, the Opposite-party no.2 Vibha Bharti along with her
father Nawal Prasad Singh has appeared and have filed a joint
written statement in the said matrimonial case no.190 of 2010
in the court of learned Principal Judge, Bhagalpur.
IX. That, the Opposite-party no.2 Vibha Kumari put in a petition
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said Matrimonial

Case No.190 of 2010 with a prayer to pass an interim order to
pay cost for trial of the suit and maintenance for herself and
her minor daughter dated 19.10.2011.
Apart from the above several other incidents have
taken place after the evidence of the above four P.Ws.
6. That, under the above mentioned facts and circumstances of
this case the petitioners along with other accused person put in a petition
praying therein to recall P.Ws.1,2,3 and 7 for further cross-examination that
would be essential to the just decision of the case.
A true photo stat copy of the recall
petition dated 02.04.2012 is annexed
-6-
7. That, after hearing both the sides the learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate rejected the petition of the accused persons by his
order dated 26.04.2012 passed by the learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Munger in
G.R. No.388 of 2001, the above named

petitioners beg to prefer this revision application
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate
is erroneous both in law and on facts .
II. For that, the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate did
not apply his judicial mind while passing the impugned order and it is fit
to be set aside .
III. For that, the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate
should have considered the number of developments took place after the
evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,3 and 7 examined in this case and should have
passed order to recall these witnesses for further cross examination .
-7-
IV. For that, the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate
should have considered that the recall and further cross-examination of the
said P.Ws. was essential to the just decision of the case.
V. For that, the learned Magistrate should have allowed the
petition and should not have rejected the petition by his instant cryptic
order .
VI. For that, the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate
should have considered that the further cross-examination of the above
mentioned P.Ws. would have not only exposed that the P.Ws. have
concealed the material ad important aspect of the case but would have
established the falsity of the entire prosecution case .
VII. For that, for a just decision in this case it is necessary that
examined witness be recalled for their cross-examination.
VIII. For that, the learned Magistrate has erred in holding that no
subsequent event can be considered ignoring the fact that Hon'ble High
Court has given liberty to the parties to take proper step before the learned
court below.
VIII. For that , the order passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal ,
improper and the same is fit to be set aside.
IX. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
-8-
It is ,therefore, prayed that your Lordships may be
pleased to admit this revision application, call for
the records and issue notice to the opposite-party
and after hearing the parties set aside the order
dated 26.04.2012 in G.R. No.388 of 2001passed
by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , Munger or pass such other order/
orders as may deem fit and proper .
AND
During the course of the pendency of this revision
application further proceeding in the learned
court below against the petitioners may remain
stayed.
And for this ,the petitioners shall ever pray.

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2012.
AND
In the matter of :-
Brahmdeo Mahto , son of Ram Dayal Mahto ,
Resident of village- Bakhari , P.S. Sursand , District – Sitamarhi
VERSUS

To,
-2-
judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad
Pandey ,the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.3 ,
Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.38 of 2008 /14 of 2010 whereby and where
under the appeal filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and the sentence
awarded by the learned trial court for charge under Section 325 of the
Indian Penal Code is set aside and sentence awarded under Sections 323
and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed , arising out of judgment
and order dated 05.07.2008 passed by Sri Prem Kumar Srivastava learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi in G.R. No.229 of
2004 , T.R. No.304 of 2008 , by which the learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi has been pleased to convict the

petitioner and others under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of one month
for each Section and the petitioner was further convicted under Section
325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. of six
months . All the sentences shall run concurrently .
3. That, the prosecution case ,in brief , is that informant Ram
Chandra Mahto (P.W.4 ) submitted his report before the Officer-in-Charge
-3-
of Sursand Police- Station on 15.06.2004 alleging therein that petitioner
along with other accused persons Ram Dayal Mahto , Ramesh Mahto and
Shiv Dayal Mahto were filling earth to construct road on the land of the
informant on 14.06.2004. He further alleged that when he protested them
from filling earth , accused Ramesh Mahto caught hold his hand and
accused petitioner assaulted on his palm of left hand causing fracture
thereon . He further alleged on his alarm , his wife ( P.W.3 ) came there
then accused Ram Dayal Mahto and Shiv Dayal Mahto started beating to
her and all the accused persons uprooted Khunta meant for tying bullock
and petitioner also snatched away golden nose ring from nose of his wife .
The occurrence was witnessed by Ajay Thakur , Shankar Mandal.
4. That, on the basis of written report filed by the informant
(P.W.4 ) , Sursand Police drew up a formal First Information Report and

registered a case being Sursand P.S. Case No.59 of 2004 dated 15.06.2004
registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325,379/34 of the
Indian Penal Code .
Report , the Police proceeded with the investigation .
6. That, it is stated that after investigation of the case ,the police
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others under Sections 341,
323, 325, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code .
-4-
7. That, it is stated that after submission of charge-sheet ,the
learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Pupri at Sitamarhi took
cognizance against the petitioner and others under Sections 341,323,325/34
and 379 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 28.10.2004 .
8. That, it is stated that thereafter the charges were framed
against the petitioner and others under the aforementioned Sections and
aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the petitioner and four
others .At the time of framing of the charges , the petitioner and others
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .
9. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether six
P.W.1 : Ajay Thakur
P.W.2 : Shankar Mandal

P.W.3 : Sampat Devi
P.W.4. : Ramchandra Mahto (informant )
P.W.5 : Sachchida Nand Singh ( Investigating Officer the case)
P.W.6 : Dr. Sachchida Nand Singh ( who examined the informant )
case such as :-
Ext.1 : Form First Information Report
Ext.2 : Signature of the Officer-in-Charge on Fardbeyan
-5-
Ext.3 : Injury Report of Ram Chandra Mahto
Ext.4 : Certified Copy of judgment of G.R. Case No.499 of 1979
11. That, it is stated that on behalf of Defense Satya Narayan
Singh and Bhola Mahto were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2.
12. That, it is stated that on behalf of the defense altogether two
documentary evidences were produced to falsify the prosecution versions
such as :-
Ext. A :Rent Receipt
Ext. B : Sale Deed dated 04.04.1970
13. That , it is stated that all the prosecution witnesses are the
interested witnesses and co-related with the each other and all of them had
given tutored statements ,therefore, their statement is not trustworthy.

14. That, it is stated that P.W.4 informant did not produce any chit
of paper regarding land in question on which it is alleged that the accused
persons wanted to construct the road .
15. That, it is stated that P.W.2 in his evidence said that Mukhiya
of the Gram Panchayat had granted permission to him for constructing the
road ,therefore, he was filling earth there but informant prevented him for
doing so ,therefore, he stopped filling earth , which falsifies the genesis of
the prosecution version.
16. That, it is stated that wife of the informant P.W.3 is not the eye
witness of the so-called occurrence since P.W.2 in his evidence said that
-6-
the P.W.3 came at the place of occurrence after five minutes of the
occurrence .
17. That, it is stated that P.W.4 in his evidence himself admitted
that there were land dispute and a proceeding under 107 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is going on between the parties.
18. That, it is stated that P.W.5 Investigating Officer in his
evidence said that the informant did not produce any paper of the land in
question when he inspected the place of occurrence and he also said that he
did not see earth which is said to have been kept on the place of occurrence.
19. That, it is stated that P.W.1 in his evidence said that the
accused persons were assaulting the informant indiscriminately by
surrounding him ,therefore, multiple injuries would have caused on the

person of the informant but according to the doctor P.W.6 only one injury
on the left palm of the informant was found which falsifies the prosecution
version .
20. That, it is stated that there is serious contradiction in between
Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi has been pleased to convict the petitioner
and others under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of one month for each
Section and the petitioner was further convicted under Section 325 of
-7-
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. of six months
and all the sentences shall run concurrently without considering the
evidence available on record.
Pupri at Sitamarhi ,the petitioner and others preferred a criminal appeal
which was registered as Cr. Appeal No.38 of 2008/14 of 2010 and during
the pendency of appeal, the petitioner was released on bail .

petitioner and others was finally heard by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge , Fast Track Court No. 3 Sitamarhi ,who was pleased to partly allow
the appeal filed by the petitioner and the sentence awarded by the learned
trial court for charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is not
sustainable and same is set aside and sentence awarded under Sections 323
and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable under law and the same is
affirmed .
-8-
Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey ,the learned
Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court
No.3 , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.38 of 2008 /14
of 2010 as also the judgment and order
05.07.2008 passed by Sri Prem Kumar Srivastava
Pupri at Sitamarhi in G.R. No.229 of 2004 , T.R.
No.304 of 2008 the above named petitioner
the other following

GROUNDS:
-9-
failed to produce any chit of paper regarding the land in question before the
Investigating Officer of the case during the course of investigation as
admitted by the Investigating Officer i.e. P.W.5.
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the Investigating
Officer did not found earth at the place of occurrence which is said to have
been alleged in the First Information Report .

court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that P.W.2 in his
evident said that he saw the wife of the informant after five minutes of the
occurrence .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the informant P.W.4
in his evidence admitted that there is land dispute and a proceeding under
Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the parties.
VIII. For that ,while continuing the conviction order of the learned
trial court ,the learned appellate court failed to appreciate that the P.W.2 in
his evidence said that the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat had granted
-10-
permission for construction of the Road ,therefore, he was filling earth but
informant prevented him for doing so ,therefore, he stopped filling earth
which falsifies the genesis of the prosecution version .
justice.

passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey ,the learned
No.3 , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.38 of 2008 /14
of 2010 as also the judgment and order
05.07.2008 passed by Sri Prem Kumar Srivastava
Pupri at Sitamarhi in G.R. No.229 of 2004 , T.R.
No.304 of 2008 .
-11-
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
AND
In the matter of :-
Shamsujoha @ Md. Shamsujoha , son of Late Md. Daud ,
Resident of village- Barharwa , P.O. and P.S. Dumra , District – Sitamarhi
VERSUS
To,

-2-
judgment and order dated 24.10.2011 passed by Sri Ram Shankar
Singh , the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge , Fast Track
Court No. 3 , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 21 of 2011 which was heard
along with Cr. Appeal No.05 of 2011 , whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi has been pleased to dismiss
the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner and affirm the judgment and
order on the point of sentence dated 28.12.2010 passed by the learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar in Trial No.1609 of
2010 , arising out of G.R. No.1576 of 2008 , by which the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar has been pleased to
convict the petitioner and three others under Section 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for a period of two
year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they
shall have to undergo further imprisonment of six months. The learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar has further been
pleased to convicted the petitioner and three others under Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for one year and
also a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the same and in default of payment of
-3-
fine they shall have to undergo further imprisonment of six months. All
the sentences are run concurrently .
3. That, it is stated that initially the complainant/informant
Jananti Khatoon filed a complaint case in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi which was registered as Complaint Case
No.1000 of 2008 and after institution of the complaint case ,the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi was pleased to sent the complaint to
the Dumra Police- Station for institution of the First Information Report and
investigation of the case.
4. That, after receipt of the complaint , the Dumra Police drew up
a formal First Information Report and registered a case being Dumra P.S.
Sections 341,323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/ 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. That, the prosecution case as alleged in the complaint
petition /First Information Report ,in short, is that the marriage of the
complainant/informant Jannati Khatoon was solemnized with the
petitioner according to the Muslim customs and rites prior to 10 years of
filing of the complaint petition. The complainant further alleged that when
she went to her Sasural and started to live in matrimonial house . She
-4-
further alleged that at the time of marriage her parents had given
Rs.30,000/- and other house hold articles to the in-law’s family and the
amount of Mehar was fixed in her marriage Rs.10,786/-. It is further alleged
that after some time ,the accused persons started demanding dowry of
Rs.40,000/- and a Hero Honda Motorcycle and due to non-fulfillment of
said demand of dowry , the in-law’s family always subjected her to cruelty
and she was subjected to mental and physical torture . It is further alleged
that after the death of her father-in-law , accused persons stopping to
provide food to her and always assaulting her . The complainant further
alleged that her brother had given Rs.10,000/- to them but inspite of that
the accused persons on 05.07.2008 , assaulted her with Khanti and after
pouring Kerosene Oil , they wanted to kill her but any how she was saved .
The complainant further alleged that thereafter taking her two
children ,accused persons dragged her from the house then she came back
to the house of her parents . It is further alleged that on 06.07.2008 ,her
father and brother went to her Sasural and a Panchayati was held but no
result .
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and four others under Section
498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act .
-5-
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner
and four others under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act .
against the petitioner and four others under the aforementioned Sections
and aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the petitioner and
four others .At the time of framing of the charges , the petitioner and four
others pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .
10. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether five
P.W.1 : Jananti Khatoon ( informant herself )
P.W.2 : Md. Manjoor
P.W.3 : Md. Jahid
P.W.4. : Shamila Khatoon ( mother of the informant )
P.W.5 : Rang Bahadur Singh ( Investigating Officer the case)
case such as complaint petition as Exhibit-1 and signature of the Officer-in-

Charge of Dumra Police- Station on formal First Information Report as
Exhibit -2.
-6-
12. That, it is stated that on behalf of the defense altogether ten
documentary evidences were produced to falsify the prosecution versions
such as :-
Ext. A :Discharge slip of Tabassum Khatoon from King George’s
Medical University Lucknow.
Ext. A/1 :Letter of Dr. Ahmad which was written to the Hon'ble Health
Minister , Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Ext. A/2 :Discharge ticket of Indoor patient of King George’s Medical
University Lucknow .
Ext. A/3 :Advised Slip of King George Medical University, Lucknow
Ext. A/4, A/5 & A/6: Treatment Advised Slip.
Ext. A/7 :Advised slip of Sun Sanjivani Hospital Maternity and Eye –
Care Centre , Lucknow.
Ext. A/8 :The Certificate of Chief Medical Officer regarding disability
of Tabassum.
Ext. A/9 :The certificate of Shifa Nurshing Home , Lucknow.
13. That , it is stated that all the prosecution witnesses are the
interested witnesses and co-related with the each other and all of them had
given tutored statements ,therefore, their statement is not trustworthy.

14. That, it is stated that the informant /complainant ( P.W.1 ) is
habitual to lodge the false cases against the in-law’s family with the false
-7-
and concocted allegation only with a view to create havoc on the in-law’s
family.
15. That, it is stated that the informant , her brother and father had
come to the house of the petitioner and assaulted the family member of the
petitioner for which a complaint petition was filed in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi on behalf of the petitioner
against the informant and her brother and father and the said complaint was
sent to the Dumra Police- Station for institution of the First Information
Report upon which Dumra Police drew up a formal First Information
Report being Dumra P.S. Case No.189 of 2008 in which the informant and
her brother and father was ultimately found guilty under Section 323 of the
Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court .
16. That, it is stated that not even only this , the informant also
lodged the maintenance case against the petitioner for her maintenance and
her children before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in
which the learned Principal Judge directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/-
per month for their maintenance.
17. That, the fact is that the informant herself is not willing to live
with the petitioner since very early and with the false and concocted
allegation she lodged the cases against the petitioner one by one to extort
money from the in –law’s family in connivance with his brother and father.
-8-
18. That, it is stated that in the complaint case /First Information
Report , the specific case of the complainant /informant against accused
Tabassum Khatoon was that the said Tabassum Khatoon wanted to set fire
upon the informant but during the course of investigation as well as during
the course of trial ,the prosecution has failed to establish its case against
accused Tabassum since the documents of the Government Institution
shows that after falling from the roof of the house in the year 2005 the
accused Tabassum had become vision less and she had received various
treatment but she failed to recover the vision of her eye sight ,therefore, the
said accused Tabassum Khatoon was acquitted by the learned Trial Court.
19. That, it is stated that subsequently the prosecution has also
failed to establish her case against the accused persons merely on the
unreasonable doubts.
20. That, it is stated that the informant wanted to file bond of Rs.3
Lacs and started to bargain the petitioner ,it shows that the informant
herself did not ready to live with the petitioner and creating undue pressure
upon the petitioner .

Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi convicted the petitioner vide judgment and
order dated 28.12.2010 ,without taking into consideration the material
-9-
available on record as well as prosecution has failed to examine the
independent witnesses , convicted the e petitioner and three others under
Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo
S.I. for a period of two year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine they shall have to undergo further imprisonment of six
months. The learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar
has further been pleased to convicted the petitioner and three others under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo S.I.
for one year and also a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the same and in default
of payment of fine they shall have to undergo further imprisonment of six
months. All the sentences are run concurrently .
23. That, it is pertinent to mention here that on the date of
conviction ,the petitioner had already in judicial custody .

Sadar Sitamarhi ,the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal which was
registered as Cr. Appeal No.21 of 2011 and other convicted accused persons
preferred another criminal appeal which was registered as Cr. Appeal
-10-
No.05 of 2011 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner was not
released on bail .
petitioner was finally heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,
Fast Track Court No. 3 Sitamarhi along with criminal appeal filed by
other three other accused persons ,who was pleased to dismiss the criminal
appeal filed by the petitioner i.e. Cr. Appeal No.21 of 2011 and affirm the
judgment and order dated 28.12.2010 passed by learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi vide judgment and order dated
24.10.2011 without taking consideration of the glaring ignorance of non-
examination of independent witnesses as well as the prosecution has failed
to establish its case beyond all unreasonable doubts whereas the criminal
appeal filed by other three accused persons i.e. Cr. Appeal No.05 of 2011
was allowed by the said order .
27. That, it is stated that the petitioner has not been enlarged on
bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal and he is behind the bars
through out prior to his conviction .

28. That, the petitioner is languishing in jail custody since last 18
months.
-11-
judgment and order dated 24.10.2011 passed
by Sri Ram Shankar Singh , the learned
Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. 5
,Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 21 of 2011 as also
the judgment and order on the point of sentence
dated 28.12.2010 passed by learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi
in Trial No.1609 of 2010 arising out of G.R.
No.1576 of 2008 , the above named petitioner
the other following
GROUNDS:

-12-
failed to establish its case against the accused one Tabassum Khatoon
against whom there is serious allegation that she wanted to set fire upon the
informant since during the course of trial it proves that she had become
vision less since 2005.
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the informant is
habitual to lodge the cases against the in-law’s family one by one to create
havoc on the in-law’s family as well as the petitioner .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the informant , her
brother and father attacked on the petitioner and his family members for
which a case was filed on behalf of the petitioner in which the brother and
father of the informant was found to be guilty under Section 323 of the
Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court .

court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that since the case
lodged by the informant is false and concocted ,therefore, there is no
independent witnesses have come to support the case of the prosecution .
-13-
VIII. For that ,while continuing the conviction order of the learned
trial court ,the learned appellate court failed to appreciate that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused
persons ,therefore, the learned appellate court acquitted all the accused
persons except the petitioner and confirmed the conviction order with
respect to the petitioner merely on the ground that the petitioner happens
to the husband of the informant .
justice.

passed by Sri Ram Shankar Singh , the learned
,Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 21 of 2011 as also
-14-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi
in Trial No.1609 of 2010 arising out of G.R.
No.1576 of 2008 .
AND/OR
A ND
petitioner be enlarged on bail as also to stay the
order of fine to the satisfaction of the learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sadar at
Sitamarhi in Trial No.1609 of 2010 arising out of
G.R. No.1576 of 2008 .

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Md. Shamsujoha , son of Late Md. Daud ,
Resident of village- Barharwa , P.O. and P.S. Dumra , District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Jananti Khatoon , wife of Md. Shamsujoha ,
3. Seema Khatoon , minor daughter of Md. Shamsujoha
4. Masooma Khaton , minor daughter of Md. Shamsujoha,
5. Md. Aadil ,minor son of Md. Shamsujoha,
6. Md. Aakib ,minor son of Md. Shamsujoha,
Opposite-party nos. 3 to 6 are under the guardian of Jananti
Khatoon .
All are resident of village – Bariyarpur , P.S.
Sitamarhi ,District – Sitamarhi.
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
and order dated 26.08.2011 passed by Sri Ajit Kant Sharan , the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in Maintenance Case No.50 of
2008 , whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has been
pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the
Opposite-party no.2 for maintenance of the Opposite-party no.2 and her
children i.e. Opposite-party nos. 3 to 5 on or before the 10 th of following
month regularly without fail from the date of passing of this order .
3. That, the facts giving rise to the present revision application is
that the Opposite-party no.2 filed the maintenance case in the court of
-3-
learned Principal Judge , Family Court, Sitamarhi on 08.07.2008 alleging
therein that the Opposite-party no.2 was married with the petitioner as per
Muslim Rites and custom about 10 years ago at a dower debt of
Rs.10,786/- . It is further alleged that after marriage, the Opposite-party
no.2 started living with the petitioner and from their wedlock two sons
and two daughters were born out . It is further alleged that after marriage
the petitioner started ill treating the Opposite-party no.2 and demanded
Rs.40,000/- in cash and a Hero Honda Motorcycle from the Opposite-party
no.2 and her parents and when it was refused by them ,then the petitioner
started abusing the Opposite-party no.2 and stopped her food and treatment.
It is further alleged that on 05.07.2008 , the petitioner and his relative
assaulted the Opposite-party no.2 and ousted her and her three minor
children from his house and the Opposite-party no.2 with her three minor
children came to her Maike situated at village- Bariyarpur , P.S. and
District -Sitamarhi. It is further alleged that the Opposite-party no.2 has no
means to support her and her minor children and she is guardian of
Opposite-party nos. 3 to 6. and the parents of the Opposite-party no.2 are
poor person and are unable to maintain the Opposite-party no.2 and her
minor children and it is the duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and
minor children. It is further alleged that the petitioner is a tailor and is
earning Rs.10,000/- per month from tailoring and he has also 6 Bighas of
land and the annual income from the landed property is more than Rs.1 Lac
-4-
and the petitioner has income of Rs.2,20,000/- annually from all the sources
and the petitioner is legally bound to maintain the Opposite-party no.2 and
her minor children.
4. That, it is stated that the aforesaid maintenance case filed by
the Opposite-party no.2 on 08.07.2008 in the court of learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi was registered as Maintenance Case
No.50 of 2008.
A true photo stat copy of the plaint
of Maintenance Case No.50 of
application.
5. That, it is stated that after service of notice ,the petitioner
appeared before the learned Principal Judge and filed his written statement
on 24.09.2008 stating therein that all the allegations made in the complaint
filed by the Opposite-party no.2 is completely false and fabricated .The
petitioner categorically denied the statements made in the complaint of the
Opposite-party no.2 and he said that he is ready to keep the Opposite-

party no.2 as his wife as well as his children with full dignity and surety but
the Opposite-party no.2 herself did not ready to live with the petitioner and
deserted the life of the petitioner .
-5-
A true photo stat copy of the written
statement filed by the petitioner on
application.
6. That, it is stated that in the name of the family of the petitioner
only 19 ½ decimals are standing in which the petitioner has only 1/6 th share
which comes about only 3 decimals. In fact the petitioner is landless person
and he has only homestead land .
7. That, it is stated that the petitioner was doing the work of
Tailor in his native village and from the same income ,the petitioner was
any how maintaining his family .
8. That, it is stated that the petitioner neither demanded any
dowry nor ousted from his house rather the Opposite-party no.2 herself left
the house of the petitioner and deserted the life of the petitioner .
9. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 had lodged the
cases against the petitioner and his family members one after another i.e.
Dumra P.S. Case No.190 of 2008 and Dumra P.S. Case No.28 of 2010
registered for the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code
and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code .
-6-
10. That, it is stated that the petitioner was convicted by the
learned trial court in Dumra P.S. Case No.190 of 2008 lodged by the
Opposite-party no.2 and he is behind the bars since long .
11. That, it is stated that the petitioner had also filed the case
against the Opposite-party no.2 and his brother and father being Dumra P.S.
Case No.189 of 2008 in which they were found guilty under Section 323 of
the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2011.
12. That, it is stated that due to lodgment of the criminal cases
against the petitioner by the Opposite-party no.2 one after another , the life
of the petitioner has been completely ruined.
13. That, it is stated that the petitioner is behind the bars since
long and the petitioner has no source of income and also there is no hope
after the release from the jail he would earn to maintain his life .
14. That, it is pertinent to mention here that the Opposite-party
no.2 herself is not ready to live with the petitioner and she deserted the
life of the petitioner after best efforts made by him .
15. That, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court , Sitamarhi
passed the impugned judgment and order dated 26.08.2011 , whereby and
where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to the petitioner
to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite-party no.2 for
maintenance of the Opposite-party no.2 and her children i.e. Opposite-party
-7-
nos. 3 to 5 on or before the 10th of following month regularly without fail
from the date of passing of this order.
Sri Ajit Kant Sharan , the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in Maintenance
Case No.50 of 2008 ,the above named
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in view of the fact that the
Opposite-party no.2 is herself not ready to live with the petitioner though
the petitioner is ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 and her children with
full dignity and surety ,therefore, the Opposite-party no.2 is not entitled to
get any maintenance or interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure .
III. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that even after the best efforts of the
petitioner ,the Opposite-party no.2 did not ready to live with the petitioner .
-8-
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.2 herself
deserted the life of the petitioner though the petitioner is ready to keep the
Opposite-party no.2 and her children with full dignity and
surety ,therefore, she would not be entitled to any maintenance under the
provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
V. For that, while fixing the maintenance ,the learned Principal
Judge failed to appreciate that due to lodgment of the criminal cases by the
Opposite-party no.2 against the petitioner one after another ,the life of the
petitioner completely ruined and in one of the case ,the petitioner was
convicted and at present he is behind the bars .
VI. For that, while fixing the maintenance ,the learned Principal
Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner is landless person and he was
doing the work of tailoring in the village and from the said income any how
he could maintain his family ,therefore, the amount of maintenance of
Rs.4,000/- disproportionate to the income of the petitioner .
VII. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.2 has

failed to establish the ground for maintenance and he did not produce any
evidence about the landed property of the petitioner as well as income of the
petitioner .
VIII. For that, the maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge
-9-
is excessive than the income of the petitioner .
IX. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law .
application, issue notice to the opposite-party no.2
and after hearing the parties be further pleased to
set aside the judgment and order dated 26.08.2011
passed by Sri Ajit Kant Sharan , the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in
Maintenance Case No.50 of 2008 .
AND/OR
AND
operation of the impugned judgment and order
dated 26.08.2011 passed by Sri Ajit Kant

Sharan , the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Sitamarhi in Maintenance Case No.50
of 2008 may kindly be stayed.
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
AND
In the matter of :-
Amar Kumar @ Amarnath Prasad @ Amarnath Singh , son of Sri Raj
Kumar Sah, resident of village- Ashogi ,P.S. Bairgania ,District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS

To,
-2-
judgment and order dated 30.09.2010 passed by Sri Nand Kishore

Tiwari , the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. 1 ,
Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 50 of 2009/ 20 of 2009 , whereby and where
under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi has been pleased to
dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner and affirm the judgment
and order on the point of sentence dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,Pupri at Sitamarhi in Trial No.35 of
2009 , arising out of G.R. No.30 of 1998 ,Pupri P.S. Case No.07 of 1998
by which the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at
Sitamarhi has been pleased to convict the petitioner under Section 25(1-
b)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a
period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for Section 25(1-B)a and
Section -26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine he shall have
to undergo further imprisonment of three months for each of the default of
payment of fine.
-3-
Report ,in short, is that the informant namely I.D. Chaudhary ,who is the
Sub-Inspector of Pupri Police- Station recorded his self statement alleging
therein that on 13.01.1998 at about 5 P.M. in the morning along with Sub-
Inspector , Rajeshwar Singh and Sub-Inspector K.B. Singh and other

police personnel were moving in village in connection with the
investigation of Pupri P.S. Case No.06 of 1998 registered for the offences
under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for recovery of
abducted Gandhi Chadra Chaudhary at village- Singhiyani . It is further
alleged that in the meantime they heard some noise and saw that a person
was trying to flee away seeing the police party , but on chase ,he was
arrested . It is further alleged that on search in presence of independent
witnesses, county made pistol loaded with 0.315 bore rifle cartridge were
recovered and one more cartridge was found in the pocket of shirt . It is
further alleged that thereafter the seizure list was prepared in presence of
both witnesses namely Ramprit Mukhiya and Jai Karan Paswan and both
the witnesses put their signature over it . It is further alleged that on
demand of paper regarding the recovered arms he neither produced any
paper nor replied satisfactory and accordingly the accused along with arm
has been taken into custody by the Police.
4. That, on the basis of the aforesaid self statement of the
informant , Pupri Police drew up a formal First Information Report and
-4-
registered a case being Pupri P.S. Case No.07 of 1998 registered for the
offences under Sections 25(1-B) a /26 of the Arms Act .

submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 25(1-B) a/26 of
the Arms Act .
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections
25(1-B) a/26 of the Arms Act .
against the petitioner under Sections 25(1-B) a/26 of the Arms Act and
aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the petitioner .At the
time of framing of the charges , the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried .
9. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether four
P.W.1 : Indradeo Chaudhary (Informant )
P.W.2 : Sri Krishna Ram (Sergeant Major)
P.W.3 : Rajeshwar Singh (Member of the Police Party)
P.W.4. : Krishna Bali Singh (Investigating Officer of the case)
-5-
case such as
Ext.1 :Seizure list prepared by S.I. , K.B. Singh

Ext.2 :Self statement prepared by S.I. , K.B. Singh ,
Ext.3 :First Information Report
Ext.4 :Sanction report of the District Magistrate
Ext.5 :Test report of the Sergeant Major
11. That, it is stated that P.W.3 in his evidence said that during the
course of chase of the accused , Ram Prit Mukhiya had allegedly arrived
there and at the place of occurrence itself the seizure list was prepared but
the P.W.3 in his evidence did not say about the presence of another seizure
list witness namely Jai Karan Paswan whose signature was also allegedly
obtained upon the Seizure list which also creates a serious doubt about the
prosecution version.
12. That, it is stated in the present case , non of the independent
witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to support its case rather
all the witnesses are Police Personnel and interested witnesses .
13. That, it is stated that seizure list witnesses namely Ram Prit
Mukhiya and Jai Karan Paswan have not been examined by the prosecution
in whose presence allegedly the so-called arms were recovered .
-6-
14. That, it is stated that P.W.1 (informant ) in his evidence said
that the arm was covered with rust whereas P.W.2 ( Sergeant Major ) in his
evidence said that during the course of testing of the recovered arms he
found that the firing pin and trigger spring of the arm effect .
the version of the First Information Report and evidence of the prosecution
witnesses during the course of trial.
16. That, it is stated that there is also serious contradiction in
between the version of prosecution witnesses .
17. That, it is stated that the prosecution has also did not establish
the case that from the possession of the so-called arms were recovered .
Magistrate , Pupri at , Sitamarhi convicted the petitioner vide judgment
and order dated 30.06.2009 ,without taking into consideration the material
available on record as well as prosecution has failed to produce the
independent and seizure list witnesses and also there is serious
contradiction in between the evidence of each others , convicted the
petitioner under Section 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced
him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each
for Section 25(1-B)a and Section -26 of the Arms Act and in default of
payment of fine he shall have to undergo further imprisonment of three
months for each of the default of payment of fine.
-7-

Pupri at Sitamarhi ,the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal which was
registered as Cr. Appeal No.50 of 2009 / 20 of 2009 and during the
pendency of appeal, the petitioner was released on bail .
20. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal was finally heard
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. 1
Sitamarhi ,who was pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirm the judgment and order dated 30.06.2009 passed
by learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi vide
judgment and order dated 30.09.2010 without taking consideration of the
glaring ignorance of non-examination of seizure list witnesses as well as
non-examination of none of the independent witnesses .
21. That, it is stated that since the petitioner is poor
person ,therefore, after filing of the criminal appeal in the year 2009 ,the
petitioner had gone to outside the State for earning his livelihood and the
appeal was taken up after such a long time and ultimately the appeal was
dismissed on 30.09.2010 but the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
-8-
the petitioner in the appeal did not inform the petitioner about the dismissal
of appeal and when the petitioner had come to his native village , then
he has got knowledge about the dismissal of appeal then he immediately
surrendered before the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at

Sitamarhi on 08.10.2011 and since then the petitioner is languishing in jail
custody .
A true photo stat /typed copy of the
custody order dated 08.10.2011 is
ANNEXURE- “2” to this
application.
Sri Nand Kishore Tiwari , the learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. 1 ,Sitamarhi
in Cr. Appeal no. 50 of 2009 /20 of 2009 as
also the judgment and order on the point of
sentence dated 30.06.2009 passed by learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at
-9-
G.R. No.30 of 1998, Pupri P.S. Case No.07 of
1998 , the above named petitioner begs to
prefer this revision application on amongst the
other following
GROUNDS:
failed to examine the seizure list witnesses namely Ram Prit Mukhiya and
Jai Karan Paswan in whose presence so-called recovery was made from the
possession of the petitioner .
contradiction in between the statement of the P.W.1 (informant ) and P.W.2
Sergeant Major ,according to the P.W.1 the arms was covered with rust
whereas according to the P.W.2 the firing pin and trigger spring of the arm
was effective .
-10-
failed to produce any independent witness to establish his case rather all
the witnesses are police personnel and interested witness and their
statements are not trustworthy .
failed to establish that from the possession of the petitioner so-called arms
was recovered .
lodged by the informant is false and concocted and there is no independent
witnesses have come to support the case of the prosecution .
VIII. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
IX. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
-11-

passed by Sri Nand Kishore Tiwari , the learned
,Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 50 of 2009 /20 of
2009 as also the judgment and order on the point
of sentence dated 30.06.2009 passed by learned
1998.
AND/OR
A ND
petitioner be enlarged on bail as also to stay the
order of fine to the satisfaction of the learned
-12-
1998.
( PETITIONERS IN JAIL )
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
AND
In the matter of :-
1. Hari Narayan Rai, son of Late Munni Rai,
Resident of village- Hariharpur , P.S. Bathnaha , District – Sitamarhi.
2. Ramchandra Rai, son of Late Brij Nandan Rai,
Resident of village- Pakaria , P.S. Parihar ,District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS

To,
-2-
1. That, this revision application is directed against the part of
the judgment and order dated 20.11.2010 passed by Shri Nand Kishore
Tiwari , the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. 1 ,
Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 33 of 2008/ 36 of 2009 , whereby and where
under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi has been pleased to
dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the petitioners and others and affirm
the judgment and order dated 12.06.2008 passed by the learned 2 nd
Assistant Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 278 of 2002 /53
of 2002 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1292 of 2001 / Parihar P.S. Case
No.55 of 2001 dated 07.11.2001 by which the learned 2 nd Assistant
Judge , Sitamarhi has been pleased to convict the petitioners under
Section 307 read with Section 149 ,351 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code and two years under Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code and fine of Rs.2000/- each and default of payment of fine convicts
will have to undergo further imprisonment for six months each however all
the sentence will run concurrently.
2. That, the petitioners have not moved before this Hon’ble High
-3-
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, as per the First
Information Report is that the informant Mukeshwar Rai ( P.W.4 ) gave
his Fardbeyan stating therein that his father and witness Arun Kumar were
going to attend natural call to western direction of the village and when they
reached near Pipal Tree standing at Chowk , accused person along with
other accused persons who has already let ambush suddenly fell upon them
. The accused Shyam Chandra Rai and Hari Narain Rai armed with Nepali
Kukri in their hand , accused Navin Rai held Riffle in hand and rest
accused persons were armed with Garasa and Lathi and accused Shyam
Chandra Rai exhorted other accused persons to kill all the three where upon
informant and his father came running to house of Chandeshwar Rai having
played there from and Arun Rai filed to village raising alarm . It is further
alleged that all the accused persons came running brandishing were
respective weapon held by them and accused Raj Kishore
Rai ,Harischandra Rai , Rakesh Rai , Ramchandra Rai caught hold the
hand and leg of his father and accused Hari Narain Rai and Shyam Chandra
Rai started cutting with dagger . It is further alleged that accused Shyam
Chandra Rai chopped off right hand of his father from elbow and accused
Hari Narain Rai made several murderous assault to his father with intend to
keep . As a result of which his left hand was cut out and two fingers of left
hand of his father were cut off and besides this accused persons caused
wound of both leg and hand of his father fell down being unconscious and
-4-
accused Raj Kishore Rai snatched away Titan watch of his father and
handed over the same to accused Harishchandra Rai and accused Anil Rai
took away Rs.3,000/- from the pocket of his father. It is further alleged that
accused Raj Kishore Rai and Rakesh Rai said to cut in two pieces ,the
informant and his father both. Thereafter all the accused persons fell upon
the informant and accused Navin Rai fired with Riffle upon informant
which hit on above elbow of right hand and caused damages thereon and in
mean while ,other accused persons assaulted him and his father with Lathi
and accused Raj Kishore Rai and Ram Chandra Rai inflicted Garasa on his
mother came to rescue then accused persons also badly assaulted her and
thereafter many villagers rushed there shouting and accused persons fled
away and accused Anil Rai went away dismembered of his father and
witnesses Arun Rai , Mukesh Rai , Kameshwar Rai , Rameshwar Rai ,
Maheshwar Rai and other persons saw the occurrence and villagers carry to
the informant and his father and caught to Parwaha Chowk and informant
and his father both were brought to Sitamarhi Sadar Hospital where they
treated . The cause behind the occurrence was that the accused Shyam
Chandra Rai , Hari Narain Rai asked the informant to compromise the case
pending between them , otherwise they would kill the informant’s father
did not concede the demand of the accused persons as a result of which
accused persons made murderous assault on them.
-5-
4. That, on the basis of the aforesaid statement of the informant ,
Parihar Police drew up a formal First Information Report and registered a
case being Parihar P.S. Case No. 55 of 2001 registered for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 149,342, 341, 323, 324, 307 , 379 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act .
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and others under the above
mentioned Sections .
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners and others
under Sections 147,148,149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 326,307, 379 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act .
8. That, it is stated that after order taking cognizance ,the case
was committed to the court of Sessions and the case was transferred in the
court of Sessions Court for trial and disposal.

against the accused persons and others under Sections 307,149 of the
Indian Penal Code and all the accused persons were further charged for
the offence under Sections 147, 148,341 , 342 of the Indian Penal Code
and accused Raj Kishore Rai and Shyam Chandra Rai , Anil Rai and others
-6-
have further charged under Section 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code
and aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the accused .At the
time of framing of the charges , the petitioners and others pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried .
10. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether eight
P.W.1 : Mukesh Rai
P.W.2 : Fakira Rai ( victim himself )
P.W.3 : Arun Rai
P.W.4. : Mukeshwar Rai ( informant )
P.W.5 : Nagendra Rai (hearsay witness )
P.W.6 : Bishwanath Prasad Yadav ( formal witness )
P.W.7 : Dr. Laliteshwar Jha
P.W.8 : A. Ahmad ( Investigating Officer )
11. That, it is stated that the prosecution witnesses in their
evidence given the contradictory statement .

12. That, it is stated that apart from the oral evidence ,the
prosecution have also produced the certain documentary evidences before
the learned trial court in support of his case.
13. That, it is stated that there is no specific motive for alleged
occurrence committed by the accused persons . The informant alleged in
the First Information Report as well as his evidence , made during the
-7-
course of trial was very petty offences if resulted into alleged heinous
offence.
14. That, while convicting the accused persons ,the learned trial
court ought to have considered the contradictory statement given by the
witnesses .
15. That, it is stated that all the prosecution witnesses are
interested witness and therefore their evidence is not trustworthy.
16. That, as per the statement of the informant and the statement of
the victim ,different weapons were used by the accused persons in
committing such offence ,which creates serious doubt about the truthness of
the prosecution version.
17. That, it is stated that in the evidence of witnesses the serious
contradiction to each other and they also recourse contradictory to the
statement given by them before Investigating Officer under Section 161 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure .

18. That, it is stated that the learned 2 nd Assistant Sessions Judge ,
Sitamarhi convicted the petitioners and others without taking into
consideration the material available on record as well as prosecution has
failed to produce the independent witnesses and also there is serious
contradiction in between the evidence of each others and convicted the
petitioners and others under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and further convicted under Section
-8-
149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and
others Sections 147 and 341 was not awarded separate sentence and also
awarded to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and all the sentences will run
concurrently.
A certified copy of the judgment
dated 12.06.2008 and order on the
point of sentence dated 13.06.2008
19. That, it is stated that against the judgment dated 12.06.2008
and order on the point of sentence dated 13.06.2008 passed by the learned
2nd Assistant Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi ,the petitioners and others preferred
a criminal appeal which was registered as Cr. Appeal No.33 of 2008 / 36 of
2010 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioners were released on
bail .
Sitamarhi ,who was pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioners and others and affirm the judgment dated 12.06.2008 and
order on the point of sentence dated 13.06.2008 passed by learned 2 nd
Assistant Sessions Judge Sitamarhi vide judgment and order dated
20.11.2010.
-9-
21. That, it is stated that since the petitioners are poor
person ,therefore, after filing of the criminal appeal in the year 2008 ,the
petitioners had gone to outside the State for earning their livelihood and
the appeal was taken up after such a long time and ultimately the appeal
was dismissed on 20.11.2010 but the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners in the appeal did not inform the petitioners about the
dismissal of appeal and when the petitioners had come their native
village , then they have got knowledge about the dismissal of appeal then
they immediately surrendered before the learned 2 nd Assistant Sessions
Judge , Sitamarhi on 17.02.2011 and since then the petitioners are
languishing in jail custody .
A true photo stat /typed copy of the custody order
dated 17.02.2011 is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE- “2” to this application.

22. That, other accused persons have been granted bail by this
Hon'ble Court vide order dated 27.09.2011 in Cr. Rev.No.903 of 2011.
Sri Nand Kishore Tiwary , the learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. 1 ,Sitamarhi
-10-
in Cr. Appeal no. 33 of 2008 /36 of 2009 as
also the judgment dated 12. 06. 2008 and order on
the point of sentence dated 13.06.2008 passed by
learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi
in Sessions Trial No.278 of 2002 /53 of 2002
arising out of G.R. No.1292 of 2001, Parihar P.S.
Case No.55 of 2001 , the above named
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial

the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure as well as evidence of the witnesses before the learned trial
court .
III. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
contradiction in between the prosecution witnesses .
-11-
contradiction in between the statement of the informant and the statement of
the victim for using weapon by the accused persons in committing such
offence.
V. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
the witnesses are interested witness and their statements are not
trustworthy .
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
failed to appreciate that the informant himself admitted that it is a land
dispute between both the parties.

lodged by the informant is false and concocted and there is no independent
witnesses have to support the case of the prosecution .
justice.
-12-
passed by Sri Nand Kishore Tiwary , the learned
,Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 33 of 2008 /36 of
2009 as also the judgment dated 12. 06. 2008
and order on the point of sentence dated
13.06.2008 passed by learned 2nd Assistant

Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial
No.278 of 2002 /53 of 2002 arising out of G.R.
No.1292 of 2001, Parihar P.S. Case No.55 of
2001.
AND/OR
-13-
A ND
petitioners be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction
of the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge ,
Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.278 of 2002 /53 of
2002 arising out of G.R. No.1292 of 2001, Parihar
P.S. Case No.55 of 2001 .

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
Section 19(4) of the Family Court
Act, 1984;
AND
In the matter of :-
Ashok Kumar, son of Late R. K. Singh ,
Resident of village – Chacki Lahna ,P.O. Chacki , District – Buxar (Bihar ).
VERSUS
1.The State of Bihar
2. Babita Kumari , daughter of Late Ganesh Prasad Yadav,
Resident of Kali Prasad Tola, P.O. and P.S. Purnea ,District – Purnea.
……….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
1. That, this application is being filed for setting aside the order
dated 02.08.2011 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea
in Maintenance Case No.58of 2009 ,allowing a sum of Rs.2,500/- per
month to his wife Babita Kumari from the date of the order which shall be
payable on each 3rd day of the successive month.
in this matter against the impugned order.

3. That, the story can be stated in nut-shell as follows :-
(I) For that a petition of maintenance was filed by the Opposite-
party no.2 (wife of the petitioner ) before the learned Principal
Judge , Family Court, Purnea stating therein that she is the
legally wedded wife of the petitioner . The marriage was
performed on 21st May, 2004 with petitioner as per Hindu
Rituals at Sri Ram Temple in Dhanbad District ( Jharkhand ).
(II) For that, it is further stated that the grand maternal uncle of the
Opposite-party no.2 gave a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as a gift as
well as gold ornaments of Rs.80,000/-.
(III) For that ,at the time of marriage ,petitioner’s age was 40 years
and the age of Opposite-party no.2 was 27 years.
-3-
(IV) For that ,further it is alleged that petitioner and his other
family members started demanding Rs.3,00,000/- as a dowry.
(V) For that ,as per stated in the maintenance petition that father of
Opposite-party no.2 was died prior to the marriage of her and
mother of Opposite-party no.2 is deaf and dumb by birth.
(VI) For that , it is further stated that petitioner and other members
of his family began to torture mentally and physically both for
non-fulfillment of the demand.
(VII) For that, it is further stated that petitioner had gone to Patna
and started a business in R.C.M.

(VIII) For that, it is stated that on 17 th December, 2008 ,petitioner
came at his brother’s house in Dhanbad and all of them began
to create pressure for Rs.3,00,000/- as a dowry otherwise ,she
( Opposite-party no.2 )would be ousted and ultimately ousted
on 17th October,2008 and kept her ornaments.
(IX) For that ,it is also stated that petitioner earns a sum of
Rs.70,000/- per month , Opposite-party no.2 started living with
her brother-in-law namely Hemant Kumar.
(X) For that , lastly it is stated that brother-in-law of Opposite-party
no.2 Hemant Kumar tried to negotiate but petitioner remained
adamant on his demand saying that he would not take away
the Opposite-party no.2.
-4-
(XI) For that, ultimately she made a demand of Rs.25,000/- per
month for her maintenance case i.e. 58 of 2009 dated
16.03.2009.
A true /typed copy of the
4. That, petitioner is quite innocent .He has been made an escape
goat in this case by Opposite-party no.2 in connivance with her brother-in-
law namely Hemant Kumar ,who is indulged in love with her.

5. That ,it is pertinent to mention here that three persons were
examined in the said maintenance case ,two of them are the close relatives
of Opposite-party no.2 and third herself Opposite-party no.2 .Meaning
thereby no independent witness has been examined . All witnesses are
interested witnesses .
True /typed copies of the deposition
of all three witnesses are annexed
ANNEXURE- “2 series ” to this
application.
6. That, Hemant Kumar ,who is the main architect of this case and
Opposite-party no.2 is residing with him at present . Truth is that there is an
-5-
illicit relationship of Opposite-party no.2 with Hemant Kumar .That is why
strategy was made after meeting of minds in a very planned way.
7. That, it is absolutely a false allegation leveled against the
petitioner and his family members that they made pressure upon Opposite-
party no.2 for Rs.3,00,000/- ( Rupees Three Lacs ) as a dowry and
ultimately they ousted her on 17th December, 2008 from their house due to
non-fulfillment of the demand. This facility reveals in a Panchnama in
which it is stated clearly that the conjugal life was never being solemnized
and both want to live independently . There is no whispering of any kind
of dowry demand in the whole Panchnama .Ultimately it was decided that

petitioner will have to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees one Lac ) for
permanent settlement which has been paid by the petitioner on 17 th
December, 2008 itself. Petitioner paid this amount Rs.50,000/- by cash and
Rs.50,000/-by cheque.
True /typed copies of Panchnama as
well as Bank Statement are annexed
ANNEXURE- “3 series ” to this
application.
8. That, it has become crystal clear that Opposite-party no.2 and
Hemant Kumar made this plan very strategically and petitioner has been
made a scape goat in this case.
-6-
9. That, it is pertinent to mention here that Hemant Kumar and
Babita Kumari (Opposite-party no.2 ) are enjoying their illicit relationship
and after realizing Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac ) from petitioner they
have lodged a false complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No.578 of 2009 on
16th March, 2009.
10. That, it is also important to mention here that brother-in-law of
Opposite-party no.2 Hemant Kumar ,who is the conducting lawyer of
Babita Kumari of this complaint case.
11. That, it is equally important to mention here that the complaint
petition i.e. Complaint Case No.578 of 2009 has been filed by the Opposite-
party no.2 on 6th March, 2009 . Again Hemant Kumar is the conducting
lawyer in this case.
12. That, Babita Kumar indulged in love with her brother-in-law
Hemant Kumar ,who is the main architect of the whole conspiracy.
13. That, it has become crystal clear from the above mentioned
paragraphs that each and every document either complaint petition or
maintenance case ,all are nothing but the bundle of lies.
14. That, a divorce petition has been filed by the petitioner i.e. T
(M) .S. Case No.264 of 2010 under Section 3(1) (i-a)(i-b) of Hindi
Marriage Act before learned Principal Judge , Family Court, Dhanbad in
which Babita Kumar ( Opposite-party no.2 ) has not been appearing for
which summon has already been issued. Ultimately a Notice was issued to
-7-
Babita Kumari on 4th August ,2011 that appear on 19 th December, 2011
before the court otherwise ex-parte decision will be taken.
A true /photo stat copy of the notice
this application.
15. That, as per statement of Opposite-party no.2 in the
maintenance case that petitioner is earning Rs.70,000/- per month working
in business in R.C.M. Company .However ,no document regarding the
income of the petitioner has been produced by the Opposite-party no.2.

16. That, it is strange and unbelievable but unfortunate that without
analyzing the falsity of the statement of Opposite-party no.2 , learned
Principal Judge , Family Court , Purnea had fixed the award of Rs.2,500/-
per month .Therefore, the fixation of this award is not justified.
17. That, in fact and circumstances of this case, if it is analyzed
and synthesized in its totality ,it will found that the whole allegation leveled
against the innocent petitioner is nothing but a bundle of lies . Truth is that
petitioner is not in a position to pay the award of Rs.2,500/- per month to
dated 02.08.2011 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Purnea in Maintenance
-8-
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order of the learned court below is
erroneous and illegal and contrary to the record.
II. For that, the learned court below has not analyzed and
synthesized the case in its totality and due to which learned court could
not come to a reasonable stage.

III. For that ,the learned court below has not properly appreciated
the innocency of the petitioner whereas such emphasis was given on the
statement of Opposite-party no.2 .
IV. For that, the amount of payment of maintenance is beyond
the capacity of the petitioner .
V. For that, the petitioner has been made an scape goat in this
case which is crystal clear at a glance that learned court below could not
observe this fact.
VI. For that ,petitioner is suffering multi
dimensionally ,psychologically ,socially ,erroneously , normally and
Opposite-party no.2 is enjoying her illicit relationship with her brother-in-
law Hemant Kumar.
VII. For that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
-9-
application, issue notice to the opposite-party ,call
for the records of the learned court below and
aside the order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in
Maintenance Case No.58 of 2009.

AND/OR
A ND
02.08.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Purnea in Maintenance Case No.58
of 2009 may kindly be stayed.
(PETITIONER IN JAIL )
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.

AND
In the matter of :-
Md. Nazim, son of Late Kashim
Resident of village- Bangaon ,Tole- Darabkhana , P.S. Bajpatti ,District –
Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
the judgment and order dated 12th January ,2011 passed by Shri Arvind
Kumar Pandey , the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court
No. 6 , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 11 of 2009/01 of 2010 , whereby and
where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to
dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the
judgment and order dated 30.01.2009 passed by Sri Prem Kumar
Srivastava ,the learned Sub –Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at
Sitamarhi in G.R. Case No. 283/2000 , Trial No.70 of 2009 by which the
learned Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to convict the petitioner to
undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 325
of the Indian Penal Code.
Information Report is that the informant Mostt. Tahira Khatoon was
sitting at her door on 15.07.2000 at 9 A.M. in the mean time accused
Mahendra Jha , Nazim and Md. Anwar came there and on the order of
Mahendra Jha accused Md. Nazim gave Lathi blow on her hand resulting
-3-
fracture on her hand and accused Mahendra Jha gave 2-3 sticks blow to her .
It is further alleged that in the mean time the accused Arman and Nanhe
also came there and they also started to abuse the informant . She further
alleged that the accused Nanhe took away cash Rs.250/- from Anchal of her
Saree . On alarm witnesses came there and they took the informant to
Bajpatti Hospital where she was treated . The cause behind the occurrence
is land dispute between both the parties.
4. That, on the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan of the
informant , Bajpatti P.S. Case No.46 of 2000 was instituted registered
for the offences under Sections 341,323,325, 379 and 504/34 of the Indian
Penal Code .
Report , Police proceeded with the investigation .
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and four others under the
above mentioned Sections .
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner under the above
mentioned sections vide order dated 28.02.2001 .
8. That, it is stated that after order taking cognizance ,the
charges were framed against the petitioner and others under Sections
341,323, 325 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Nanhe was
-4-
charged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated
14.03.2002 and at the time of framing of the charge , the petitioner and
others pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .
9. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether Six
prosecution witnesses were examined by prosecution such as

P.W.1 : Abdul Hamid ,step son of the informant
P.W.2 :Punyadeo Pandit
P.W.3 :Abdul Hafiz ,son of the informant
P.W.4. :Abdul Samir ,son of the informant
P.W.5 : Neyaz Ahmad (Investigating Officer of the case )
P.W.6 :Dr. Md. Ekramul Haque ,who treated the informant .
10. That, it is stated that apart from the oral evidences
documentary evidences were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution such
as :-
Ext. 1 :Signature of Abdul Samir on Fardbeyan
Ext. 2 :Fardbeyan
Ext. 3 :Form First Information Report
Ext. 4 :Injury Report of the informant
Ext. 5 : Certified copy of Old Khatiyan
11. That, it is stated that P.W.1 ,who is the step son of the
informant in his evidence claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence
but in fact he is not the eye witness of the occurrence since the informant
-5-
in her Fardbeyan said that after her alarm the witnesses came and taken to
her in hospital .
12. That, it is stated that P.W.2 in his evidence did not say any
specific allegation of overtact against any of the accused persons rather he

said about the general and omnibus allegation against all the accused
persons.
13. That, it is stated that P.W.3 and P.W.4 who are the son of the
informant and they also are not the eye witness of the occurrence rather they
are the hear say witness. In their evidence they admitted that at the time of
occurrence they were working in the filed and on call they arrived at the
place of occurrence.
14. That, it is stated that P.W. 5 ,who is the Investigating Officer of
the case in his evidence said that no theft article was recovered during the
course of investigation and nothing was asked during the cross- examination
by the defense regarding the place of occurrence.
15. That, it is stated that P.W.6 ,who treated the informant and in
his evidence said that injuries received by the informant are also possible
by fall and no mark of identification has been given by P.W.6.
16. That, it is stated that according to the face value of the
prosecution case seems to be false since the prosecution has allegedly
claimed that the informant ,who is an old lady, was assaulted by five
persons .
-6-
Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi , without taking into consideration the
material available on record , has been pleased to convict the petitioner to
undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 325
of the Indian Penal vide judgment and order on the point of sentence dated
30.01.2009.
18. That, it is stated that against the order dated 30.01.2009
passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at
Sitamarhi ,the petitioner and others preferred a criminal appeal which was
registered as Cr. Appeal No.11 of 2009 / 01 of 2010 and during the
pendency of appeal, the petitioner was released on bail .
Sitamarhi ,who was pleased to dismiss the criminal application filed by the
petitioner and affirmed the judgment and order dated 30.01.2009 passed
by Sri Prem Kumar Srivastava ,the learned Sub –Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi in G.R. Case No. 283/2000 , Trial No.70 of
2009 vide judgment and order dated 12.01.2011 .
-7-
20. That, it is stated that since the petitioner is a poor
person ,therefore, after filing of the present appeal in the year 2009 ,the
petitioner had gone to outside the State i.e. Punjab for earning his
livelihood and the appeal was taken up after such a long time and
ultimately the appeal was dismissed on 12.01.2011 but the learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the appeal did not inform
the petitioner about the dismissal of appeal and when the petitioner had
come his native village , then he got knowledge about the dismissal of
appeal then he immediately surrendered before the ld Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi on 16.09.2011 and since then the
petitioner is languishing in jail custody .
custody order dated 116.09.2011 is
application.
available on record ,the impugned orders is fit to be set aside.
Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey , the learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. 6 ,
-8-
Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 11 of 2009 /01of
2010 as also the judgment and order dated
30.01.2009 passed by Sri Prem Kumar
Srivastava ,the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial

Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi in Trial No.70 of
2009 arising out of G.R. No.283 of 2000 , the
following
GROUNDS:
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the P.W.5 who is the
Investigating Officer of the case in his cross –examination did not say
about the place of occurrence .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that P.W. 6 who
examined the informant in his evidence said that injuries are also possible
by fall and no mark of identification has been given by the P.W.5 .
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
-9-
contradiction in between the statement of the prosecution witnesses .
trustworthy .
failed to appreciate that there is admitted land dispute in between both the
parties .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that all the prosecution
witnesses are not the eye witness rather they are hear-say witness and they
had come at the place of occurrence after the so-called occurrence.
failed to appreciate that P.W.2 in his evidence did not say about the specific
overtact against any of the accused persons .
justice.
-10-

passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey , the learned
, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 11 of 2009 /01of
30.01.2009 passed by Sri Prem Kumar
Srivastava ,the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi in Trial No.70 of
2009 arising out of G.R. No.283 of 2000 .
AND/OR
A ND
-11-
petitioner be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of

Pupri at Sitamarhi in Trial No.70 of 2009
arising out of G.R. No.283 of 2000.

CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2011.
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Ravi Ranjan Kumar Ravi @ Ravi Ranjan Rai, son of Horil Rai
Resident of Mohalla- New Bankers Colony , Shastri Nagar, P.S. Mithanpura
,District –Muzaffarpur.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
dated 25.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur in Cr.
Appeal No.34 of 2011 ,whereby and where under the learned Sessions
Judge , Muzaffarpur was pleased to reject the petitioner’s application for bail
in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No.33 of 2011 registered for the
offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. That, the prosecution case in short interalia is that on
13.02.2011 ,the informant Sheema Masih ,wife of Stiphen Masih filed a
written report before the Station Head Officer of Mithanpura Police- Station
alleging therein interalia that on 12.02.2011 at about 10 A.M., the petitioner
allured her daughter Ujala Masih aged about-15 years and committed rape
with her from 10 A.M. of 12.02.2011 till 10 A.M. of 13.02.2011 .

She further alleged that she was knowing the petitioner as a
friend of her daughter but he has committed this offence after alluring her
for marriage.
-3-
informant , Mithanpura Police drew up a formal First Information
Report and registered a case being Mithanpura P.S. Case No.33 of 2011
dated 13.02.2011 attributing offence under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code .
F.I.R. of Mithanpura P.S. Case
No.33 of 2011 dated 13.02.2011 is
Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur arising out of Mithanpura P.S. Case
No.33 of 2011 dated 13.02.2011 attributing offences under Section 376 of
whatsoever and he has been falsely implicated in the present case .

7. That, it is stated that the petitioner has been dragged in this
case by the informant with some ulterior motive to grab money from the
family of the petitioner . The fact is that the petitioner is aged about only 13
years whereas the victim is aged about 18-19 years as determined by the
Medical Board.
-4-
birth certificate of the petitioner and
the report of the Medical Board are
ANNEXURE-“2” & “2/1” for
application.
8. That, the petitioner was detained by the victim and the friends
of the victim girl ,who have trapped this petitioner in the present case and
he was handed over to the police on the date of institution of the First
Information Report itself.
9. That, when the petitioner was produced before the court since
he was appearing to be a juvenile he was remanded to Remand Home and
vide order dated 30.04.2011 ,he was declared as juvenile by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board ,Muzaffarpur.

10. That, even though the petitioner was declared juvenile when
his bail application was filed before the learned Juvenile Justice Board
-5-
,Muzaffarpur which was rejected vide order dated 13.05.2011 on the
ground that since the petitioner has committed a serious offence ,therefore,
a bad message go to the society ,if he is released on bail.
order dated 13.05.2011 annexed
11. That, against the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board ,Muzaffarpur , the petitioner filed appeal in the court
of learned Sessions Judge , Muzaffarpur which was numbered as Cr.
Appeal No.34 of 2011 wherein vide order dated 25.08.2011 ,the learned
Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur was pleased to reject the petitioner’s prayer for
bail on the ground that the release of the appellant on bail would defeat the
ends of justice.
12. That, the mother of the petitioner undertakes to take care about
the activities of the petitioner in future.

dated 25.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge ,Muzaffarpur in Criminal Appeal No.34 of
2011 , the above named petitioner begs to prefer
-6-
this revision application on amongst the other
following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that prayer for bail of a juvenile can be
rejected only on the ground mentioned in the Juvenile Justice Act and for no
other reason.
III. For that, the reason assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for
rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for bail is alien to the provisions of Juvenile
Justice Act and ,therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
IV. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal filed for grant of
bail to the petitioner ,the learned Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur also failed to
appreciate the facts of the case that according to birth certificate of the
petitioner he is aged about -13 years and thus the allegation that he had
committed rape with victim whose age has been medically assessed to be
18-19 years ,is just improbable.

V. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned
Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that rejection of bail of the petitioner
would adversely affect his career.
VI. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law .
-7-
aside the order dated 25.08.2011 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur in Cr.
Appeal No.34 of 2011 and be further pleased to
direct for release of the petitioner on bail to the
Muzaffarpur in connection with Mithanpura P.S.
Case No.33 of 2011 dated 13.02.2011.
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Md. Rashid ,son of Late Amid Mian @ Amir Mian ,
Resident of village- Kakarahat , P.S. Derni ,District – Saran at Chapra.
VERSUS
2. Idris Ali ,son of Md. Sadik,
3. Akbar Ali, son of Md. Sadik,

4. Md. Sadik ,son of Amid Mian ,
5. Najma Khatoon , wife of Akbar Mian,
6. Godaila Khatoon ,wife of Md. Hussain,
7. Nazrul Nisa Khatoon ,wife of Jummadin ,
All resident of village- Kakarahat , P.S. Derni ,District –
Saran at Chapra.
…………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon’ble Chief
the judgment and order dated 16.06.2011 passed by learned Dr. Ramesh
Chandra Dwivedi , 1st Assistant Sessions Judge ,Saran at Chapra in
Sessions Trial No.54 of 2009 arising out of Derni P.S. Case No.42 of 2008
registered for the offences under Sections 341,323, 324, 504 ,34 and 307 of
the Indian Penal Code whereby and where under the learned trial court
set free the Opposite-party nos. 5 to 7 on the basis of Section 3 and 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act and rest of accused Opposite-party nos. 2 to 4
were directed to execute a bond of Rs.2,000/- with a direction to maintain

peace and harmony for a period of two years by giving the benefit of Section
-4 of the Probation of Offender Act.
-3-
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.06.2011.
3. That, the fact of the case is referred here under that the
informant Md. Rashid ( petitioner ) submitted his written report before the
Station Head Officer of Derni Police – Station stating interalia that two
mango trees situated near the house of the informant whose stem came out
from the earth and on 18.06.2008 at about 9 A.M. ,the accused persons
namely Md. Sadik , Akbar Ali were cutting the stem of the mango trees on
which he forbade to cut the said stem then Akbar Ali , Sadik ,Idris have been
abused and said that the trees does not belong to you and all the three
accused persons such as Akbar Ali (Opposite-party no.3 ) , Md. Sadik
( Opposite-party no.4 ) and Idris Ali (Opposite-party no.2 ) assaulted with
Farsa and Rod and the informant sustained injury and other accused came
there and started to abuse and assaulted with Danda and villagers came
there and rescue and accordingly the First Information Report was lodged.
4. That, thereafter the case was instituted under Section
341,323,324, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further Section 307 of
the Indian Penal Code was added vide order dated 16.07.2008. After being
made thorough investigation ,the police has submitted an application before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Saran at Chapra to add the Section -
307 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was ordered on 16.07.2008 and
-4-
according Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was added and police has
submitted charge-sheet and the case was committed to the court of Sessions
and the charges were framed under Sections 323/149, 341/149, 324/149,
504/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code .
5. That, the findings of the learned trial court mentioned in
paragraph no.7 of the judgment that Md. Idris Ali , Akbar Ali as well as
Md. Sadik came there prior to assault made by the accused, Sadik and Akbar
Ali were cutting the root of mango tree and after being forbidden to cut
the same Idris having armed with Farsa and Akbar and Sadik armed with
rod came there and started to assault the petitioner (informant ) and
consequently the petitioner sustained injury on the neck and shoulder
region which is the vital part of the body assaulted by Idris with Farsa
blow repeatedly and thereafter Akbar Ali also assaulted with rod on the
hand of the petitioner . Consequently the bone was fractured and as per the
injury report as well as the testimony of the doctor goes to support the
prosecution case but the learned trial court did not take into
consideration ,the material aspect of the prosecution and superficially the
same was discussed by the learned trial court in paragraph no.9 of the
judgment .
6. That, there is no repeated blow of the assault made by the
Opposite-parties in this way this is not a case of attempt to murder . The
Section -307 of the Indian Penal Code reveals that when there is assault
upon the vital part of the body with an intention to kill him or injury may be
-5-
the cause of death of the injured person then it should be treated as under
the purview of 307 of the Indian Penal Code . Apart from this it is a case of
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code at least or the accused persons can be
punished under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied
Sections of the Indian Penal Code but the learned trial court did not take
into consideration the consistent evidence of the witnesses as well as the
documentary evidence such as injury report or the testimony of the doctor
and passed the judgment has simple as possible and the accused persons
given benefit of probation of Offenders Act.
7. That, on the first hand ,the learned trial court has categorically
discussed the allegation leveled against the Opposite-parties but in the
same paragraph of the judgment ,the learned trial court emphatically
discussed the minor contradiction of testimony of the witnesses such as
P.W.4 , P.W.5 but here in this case, it has not been denied that the
occurrence did not take place and the informant and the other injured
persons were not assaulted by the accused persons and all the accused
persons were facing trial and the learned trial court should have
considered in totality and entirety of the case and thereafter he should

have passed the judgment and he should have also convicted the accused
persons Opposite-parties .
8. That, the First Information Report is the summary of the
offence and it is clarified during the course of trial but the learned trial court
-6-
take shadow under the umbrella of the statement given in the First
Information Report .
9. That, the learned trial court should have also considered the
size of injury caused by sharp cutting weapons and also the vital part of the
body and so far the statement of the informant has also corroborated
consistently with the evidence and the injury report as well as testimony of
the doctor.
10. That, there is common object of the Opposite-parties to commit
such type of offence and after making unlawful assembly and they have full
knowledge about the commission of offence but perchance the informant
(petitioner ) survived during his treatment and other prosecution party
were also assaulted . In this way ,it is quite absurd to say that there is no any
intention or motive behind the occurrence to commit offence and it is also
absurd to say that there is no repeated blow by the Opposite-parties on the
contrary they all have assaulted to all of them of the prosecution party by
means of Farsa , Rod and Danda . It is also specific case of the prosecution
that three lady accused also assaulted the informant by Danda and Sota ,it
appears also from perusal of testimony of P.Ws.

11. That, the charges of offence under Section 307/149 of the
Indian Penal Code is said to have not proved by the learned trial court but
having seen the material documents such as injury report and testimony of
the doctor and other witnesses , there is assault on vital part of body by
-7-
Farsa and Rod and in this way there is no question to say that the
prosecution has not able to prove the charges of the offence under Section
307/149 of the Indian Penal Code . It is the learned trial court ,who have
seen the material on record and categorical statement in the judgment and
merely on the basis of contradiction ,the ample punishment has not been
given by the learned trial court which is quite illegal in the eye of law .
The learned trial court should have scrutinized the evidence in toto and
meticulously and then he should have passed the judgment of conviction.
12. That, in paragraph no.12 of the judgment ,the learned trial
court discussed the statement of P.W.12 Alamgir and P.W.3 Khalia
Khatoon but the testimony was discarded by the learned trial court merely
on the basis of minor contradiction in their deposition.
13. That, in almost all paragraphs of the judgment ,the testimony
of witnesses have been discussed but on the basis of the statement of D.Ws.
that there is land dispute between the parties and they are agnates and the
land upon which mango trees is situated has not been separated and a
Panchayati was held on 18.06.2008 and there was no assault on that day
but the learned trial court has not been discussed any where that the said
D.W.1 is the related witness of the accused-Opposite-parties .
14. That, on the first hand, all discussions of the testimony of
witnesses made in the judgment that lastly the learned trial court has said
that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 307 of the
-8-
Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons and the charge under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Godaila , Najma and
Nazrul Nisa and prosecution has proved the charge under Sections 323,
341, 404 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons
/Opposite-parties and the charge of offence under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code against Idris , Sadik and Akbar Ali but no ample punishment
was awarded to Opposite-parties rather the learned trial court acquitted all
the accused persons for the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and the lady accused persons were also acquitted for the offence under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code . It is gross illegality committed by
the learned trial court that the bone of hand of the informant was fractured
and the learned trial court did not impose the punishment under Section
324 of the Indian Penal Code . Apart from this there is assault and injury on
the vital part of the petitioner as well as the other prosecution parties but
the learned trial court wrongly held and passed the judgment of acquittal
for offence under Section 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code . So far
the discussions made by the learned trial court for giving the benefit of
probation of Offender Act, it is quite illegal and beyond Section 3 and 4
of the said Act in this way the entire judgment and order dated 16.06.2011
is quite illegal in the eye of law as well as on facts and the same is fit to be
set aside.
-9-
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the part
of the judgment and order dated 16.06.2011
passed by learned Dr. Ramesh Chandra
Dwivedi , 1st Assistant Sessions Judge ,Saran at
Chapra in Sessions Trial No.54 of 2009 , the
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned judgment and order dated 16.06.2011 is
bad in law as well as on facts.
II. For that , the learned trial court did not meticulously examine
the testimony of the witnesses as well as the injury report and the
testimony of doctor and he did not take into consideration about the
ingredients of Section -307and 324 of the Indian Penal Code .
III. For that, the learned trial court has also failed to consider the
admitted case of assault by means of deadly weapons by common object
and planned motive and intention of the Opposite-parties but the learned
trial court acquitted the Opposite-parties for the charge under Section 307
and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
IV. For that, the learned trial court should have considered the
deposition of witnesses and material on record and he should have imposed
ample punishment for the said offence to the Opposite-parties .
-10-
V. For that, the learned trial court wrongly took shelter under
the umbrella of testimony of D.W.1 and falsified the prosecution case to
some extent .
VI. For that ,the learned trial court should have taken into
consideration the totality and entirety of the case where there is no denial of
commission of the offence but the learned trial court acquitted and light
punishment was awarded on the basis of minor contradictions in the
testimony of witnesses.
VI. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .

application, issue notice to the opposite-
parties ,call for the records of the learned trial
court and after hearing the parties be further
pleased to set
aside the part of the judgment and order dated
16.06.2011 passed by learned Dr. Ramesh
Chandra Dwivedi , 1st Assistant Sessions
Judge ,Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No.54 of
2009 and convict the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 7
under Section 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal
Code .
AND/OR
-11-

IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
AND
In the matter of :-
Amar Kumar @ Amarnath Prasad

@ Amarnath Singh ……………………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar ………..…..……………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,

-2-
above named is for condonation of delay in filing of the instant revision
application.
3. That, it is stated that the aforesaid revision application is
directed against the judgment and order dated 30.09.2010.
4. That, it is stated that against the judgment and order on the
point of sentence dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned trial court ,the
petitioner preferred criminal appeal before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.1 Sitamarhi and during the pendency
of appeal ,the petitioner was enlarged on bail , and thereafter the
petitioner proceeded outside the State for his livelihood as well as his
family members since the petitioner is very poor and illiterate person
after entrusting the pairvi to the learned counsel appearing on his behalf
and the petitioner had under the impression that the learned counsel
appearing on his behalf before the learned appellate court informed him
about the outcome of the appeal.

5. That, it is stated that since at the time of passing of the
impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2010 , the petitioner was not
present in his native village as well as the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,
-3-
Fast Track Court No. 1, Sitamarhi did not inform about the impugned
judgment and dated 30.09.2010 ,therefore, the petitioner could not
surrender before the learned trial court as well as he did not prefer any
revision against the order dated 30.09.2010 within time .
6. That, it is stated that when the petitioner had come to his
native village then the petitioner could get knowledge about the dismissal
of the appeal filed by him on 30.09.2010itself against the judgment and
order dated 30.06.2009 then the petitioner immediately surrendered before
the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi on
08.10.2011 and since then the petitioner is behind the bars .
7. That, it is stated that since the petitioner’s family are very
poor and rustic persons ,therefore, in arranging the money to file the
present criminal revision application before this Hon'ble Court ,the
family members had taken some time.
8. That, it is stated that after arranging the money , the father of
the petitioner contacted the counsel at Patna in last week of October,
2011 for filing the present criminal revision application and accordingly
the instant criminal revision application is being filed before this Hon'ble
Court.
9. That, there is no intentional latches on the part of the petitioner
to approach this Hon'ble court against the impugned order and the delay
-4-
has been caused in filing of the instant revision application because of
communication gap as well as paucity of money as mentioned above .
application .
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Ramdeo Sah, son of Late Saryug Sah,
Resident of village- Janar , P.S. Aurai, District – Muzaffarpur.
VERSUS
2. Shambhu Sah , son of Ramdeo Sah,
Resident of village- Janar , P.S. Aurai, District – Muzaffarpur , presently

posted as an Assistant Teacher , Middle School , Sahila Baijnath ,
Anchal- Aurai-II ,P.S. Hathauri ,District – Muzaffarpur.
3. Shankar Kumar Hemant , son of Ramdeo Sah,
Resident of village- Janar , P.S. Aurai, District – Muzaffarpur, presently
posted as T.T.I., Indian Rail, Solapur Junction ( Maharashtra ).
To,
the order dated 26.05.2011 passed in Maintenance Case No.14 of 2009
by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur , whereby and
where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to dispose of the
maintenance case on the basis of the affidavit sworn by the Opposite-party
nos. 2 and 3 and held that only the Opposite-party no.3 is to pay Rs.2,000/-
per month to the petitioner though in the Opposite-party no.2 in his affidavit
himself admitted that he will ready to pay Rs.2,000/- per month.
that the petitioner filed the maintenance case in the court of learned
Principal Judge , Family Court, Muzaffarpur under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure stating therein that the petitioner has two sons
-3-
i.e. Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 and in their education he had expensed
entire earnings of his life. The petitioner further said that he is aged
about 71 years and he is unable to do any physical work since last 10 years
and the age of his wife is also about -67 years and she is suffering from
Cancer since last 8-9 years . The petitioner further said that his first son is
a Government Assistant Teacher whereas his second son is T.T.I in Indian
Railway and their earnings are handsome . He further said that the
Opposite-party no.2 did not take care him as well as his wife and when the
Opposite-party no.3 visited the village he provided Rs.1,000/- . He further
said that when he asked money from the Opposite-party no.2 for treatment
of his wife then the Opposite-party no.3 asked that when the Opposite-
party no.2 will provide money then he only provide money . He further said
that in their maintenance the amount of Rs.6,000/- per months will be
required.
the petitioner in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Muzaffarpur was registered as Maintenance Case No.14 of 2009.
application.
-4-
5. That, it is stated that in the aforesaid maintenance case the
Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 appeared .
6. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.3 filed his affidavit
wherein he admitted that the Opposite-party no.2 is not paying any single
farthing for the maintenance of his parents and he also assured that he is
ready to obey the order of the court.
A true photo stat copy of the affidavit
dated 04.06.2009 along with the
petition dated 04.06.2009 filed by the
Opposite-party no.3 is annexed

7. That, it is stated that similarly the Opposite-party no.2 also
sworn an affidavit and filed it in the court of learned Principal Judge ,
wherein he said that he is ready to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the
petitioner and also said that it is the pious duty of the Opposite-party no.3
to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner .
A true photo stat copy of the affidavit
dated 04.06.2009 along with the
petition dated 26.05.2011 filed by the
Opposite-party no.2 is annexed
-5-
8. That, it is pertinent to mention here that the wife of the
petitioner is suffering from Cancer and she is under the treatment of
Mahavir Cancer Sansthan.
prescription is annexed herewith and
application.
9. That, it is stated that on the basis of the affidavit sworn by the
Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 the aforesaid maintenance case was disposed of
by the learned Principal Judge vide order dated 26.05.2011 but in the
impugned order the learned Principal Judge held that only the Opposite-
party no.3 is to pay Rs.2,000/- per month though in the affidavit of the
Opposite-party no.2 it is admission that he is ready to pay Rs.2,000/- per
month to the petitioner .
10. That, it is stated that according to the impugned order ,the
learned Principal Judge has not held that the Opposite-party no.2 is also to
pay Rs.2,000/- per month ,therefore, the Opposite-party no.2 is betrayed
from his affidavit .
11. That, it is stated that since the Opposite-party no.2 is not paying
Rs.2,000/- per month ,therefore, the Opposite-party no.3 is also not paying
-6-
the same according to the impugned order.
12. That, it is stated that in fact the learned Principal Judge did not
pass any judicial order in the maintenance case filed by the petitioner rather
the learned Principal Judge is also failed to assert the undertaking of the
Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 in the impugned order.
13. That, in fact the order of the learned Principal Judge has no
order in the eye of law.
No.14 of 2009 by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Muzaffarpur ,the above named

GROUNDS:
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.2 in his
affidavit agreed for payment of Rs.2,000/- per month but he did not direct
the Opposite-party no.2 to pay the same to the petitioner .
Principal Judge should have ordered to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- in
clear terms as agreed by the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 in their affidavit .
-7-
Principal Judge failed to appreciate to pass any order in court’s term in
view of the undertakings of the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 in their
affidavit .
V. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law .
application, issue notice to the opposite-party nos.2
and 3 and after hearing the parties be further
pleased to set aside the part of the order
26.05.2011 passed in Maintenance Case No.14

of 2009 by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Muzaffarpur .
AND/OR
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Thagan Mukhiya , son of Mukhlal Mukhiya,
Resident of village- Bhikha , P.S. Bajpatti, District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Kapal Thakur @ Kapildeo Thakur , son of Late Bilas Thakur ,
3. Ram Daras Thakur , son of Indradeo Thakur ,
Both resident of village- Bhikha , P.S. Bajpatti, District -
Sitamarhi.
…………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-

and order dated 21st May , 2011 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey ,
learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.3 Sitamarhi in
Sessions Trial No.283 of 2008/ 153 of 2008 arising out of Bajpatti P.S.
Case No.08 of 2008 registered for the offences under Sections
302,201,120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code , whereby and where under
the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to discharge/ acquit
the Opposite-party no.2 and 3 from the aforesaid charges leveled against
them on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish
the case .
3. That, the prosecution case as spelt out in the First Information
Report , which was lodged on the basis of Fardbeyan of the petitioner
(P.W.5) recorded by the Officer-in-Charge of Bajpatti Police- Station on
23.02.2008 , in brief is that his son namely Ranjit Kumar Mukhiya usually
watched sugar cane field and he went to watch sugar cane field situated
-3-
near Marha Bridge at 5 P.M. on 16.02.2008 but he did not return at night
on that day then petitioner and his family members started searching for
him from their relative and villagers but no trace of deceased was found. It
is further said that the petitioner gave information to the Police- Station
about missing of his son on 19.02.2008 and station diary entry was made. It
is further said that a grass cutters of the village saw the dead body lying in
river Marha at 2 P.M. on 23.02.2008 and commotion was raised that dead
body was lying swollen near in Marha river towards western Chaur of
Bhikha then petitioner rushed there with his family members and saw dead
body was lying on water near embankment and dead body did not flow
with water as the same was obstructed by embankment and the petitioner
identified dead body as his son from cloth namely red shirt and Paint worn
by him and a sheet was wrapped around the neck of deceased and deceased
was done to death by pressing his neck and causing injury on his body. The
petitioner further said that the accused persons along with other accused
namely Chandeshwar Thakur , Indradeo Thakur , Ram Pravesh Thakur ,
Haresh Thakur , Raju Thakur , Sukeshwar Mukhiya , Ram Briksha Mukhiya
and Basudeo Mukhiya having conspired together about the cause of death
of his son and accused persons took away his son from Sugar cane filed
where he often went to watch there and caused his death by pressing his
neck with sheet and having caused injury on his body and they concealed
the dead body of deceased below embankment in flowing water of river
-4-
Marha and dead body surfaced having swollen and informant was witness
against accused persons in several cases ,therefore, tension continued
between petitioner and accused persons and activities of accused persons
appeared suspicious after occurrence and Ram Pravesh Thakur , Ram
Briksha Mukhiya followed petitioner to Bajpatti Market when he was

going to lodge Sanha . It is further said that the petitioner claimed that
accused persons caused death of his son having strangulation and having
caused injury on body of his son due to cases being fought with them.
4. That, on the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan of the petitioner ,
Bajpatti Police drew up a formal First Information Report and registered a
case being Bajpatti P.S. Case No.08 of 2008 registered for the offences
under Sections 302,201,120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code .
5. That, it is stated that after institution of the case, police
proceeded with the investigation and during the course of investigation the
Investigating Officer recorded the statement of so many independent
witnesses in the case –diary ,who supported the prosecution version .
6. That, it is stated that after thorough investigation of the case by
the Investigating Officer , the Police submitted charge-sheet against the
Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 302,201,120B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and the investigation was pending against rest accused
persons .
-5-
7. That, it is stated that after submission of the charge-sheet by the
police , the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi
took cognizance against the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 Under Sections
302,201,120(B) of the Indian Penal Code after going through the material
available in the case-diary .

was committed to the court of Sessions for its disposal and the charges were
framed against the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 under Sections 120(B),
302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code .
9. That, in order to prove the case, the prosecution had examined
altogether 9 witnesses such as :-
P.W.1 : Bipat Sah
P.W.2 : Binay Pandey
P.W.3 : Sita Ram Pandey
P.W.4 : Mahendra Pandey
P.W.5 : Thagan Mukhiya ( informant /petitioner )
P.W.6 : Siwan Mukhiya ( brother of the informant )
P.W.7 :Dr. Naresh Das (who conducted the post-mortem of deceased)
P.W.8 : Shivendra Kumar
P.W.9 : Jitendra Jha
10. That, it is stated that the prosecution had also produced
altogether 4 documentary evidences out of his oral evidence such as
-6-
Ext.1 : Post- Mortem Report
Ext.2 :Signature of witness on inquest report
Ext.3 : Formal First Information Report
Ext.4 : Fardbeyan .
11. That ,it is stated that on behalf of defense also two witnesses
were examined such as
D.W.1 :Rajkali Devi
D.W.2 :Dewan Mukhiya
12. That, it is stated that on behalf of defense documentary
evidence was also exhibited such as judgment of case no. CI-254/2006 as
Exhibit-A.
13. That ,it is stated that P.W.1 in his evidence specifically said that
the accused persons were coming from the villager after covering their face
with Gamachha and he also said that some quarrel had taken place in
between the informant and the accused persons prior to 10 days of the
occurrence and accused persons threatened the informant for kill him.
14. That, it is stated that P.W.2 in his evidence also said that the
accused persons and deceased were talking near Marha river and he also
stated that the accused persons threatened the informant .
15. That, it is stated that P.W. 3 in his evidence also said that he
saw the accused persons and the deceased talking a Marha River where
the dead body was recovered.
-7-
16. That, it is stated that P.W.4 in his evidence said that the accused
persons abused when P.W.6 has come to the court for giving deposition .
17. That, it is stated that P.W.5 in his evidence fully supported the
prosecution version and also stated that he lodged Sanha about the missing
of his sons . He also said that P.W.1 informed him that his son was seeing
with the accused persons .
18. That, it is stated that P.W.6 also supported the prosecution
version and in his evidence said that the accused persons and others
followed him when he was going to Bajpatti Police –Station to inform
police .
19. That, P.W.7 in his evidence said that the cause of death of the
deceased due to asphyxia and hemorrhagic shock leading to C.R. failure
as a result of injury pressed by cloth like substance and sharp weapon. He
has proved Post- Mortem Report ( Exhibit-1).
20. That, it is stated that almost all the prosecution witnesses
examined on behalf of the prosecution had fully supported the prosecution
case .
21. That, it is stated that the learned trial court without taking into
consideration ,the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses who
specifically said that the deceased was last seen by them with the accused
persons at the place of occurrence and also said that there was admitted
enmity between the parties , acquitted the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3
-8-
from the charges.
22. That, it is stated that the learned trial court acquitted the
Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 only on the ground that the circumstantial
evidence is found missing .

judgment and order dated 21st May , 2011
passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey , learned
Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.3
Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.283 of 2008/ 153 of
2008 , the above named petitioner begs to prefer
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the part of the impugned judgment and order dated
21.05.2011 is bad in law as well as on facts.
II. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W. 1 ,2 and 3 have
categorically said in their evidence that the deceased was last seen with the
accused persons at the place of occurrence.
III. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 ,
the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.1 in his evidence
categorically stated that prior to 10 days some occurrence had taken place in
-9-
between the informant and the accused persons and the accused persons had
threatened the informant for dire consequences.
IV. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that, the P.W. 7 , who conducted the
post-mortem of the deceased, in his evidence specifically said that the cause
of death of the deceased due to asphyxia and hemorrhagic shock leading
to C.R. failure as a result of injury pressed by cloth like substance and
sharp weapon.
V. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that P.W.5 has fully supported the
prosecution version and said in his evidence that the P.W.1 and 3 informed
him that his son was seeing with the accused persons.
VI. For that , the learned trial failed to consider the material
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 from the
charges leveled against them .
VII. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
witnesses consistently support the contents of the prosecution version as
well as involvement of Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 in the said offence .
VIII. For that, the learned trial court acquitted the Opposite-party
nos.2 and 3 merely on the ground of the prosecution has failed to produce
the circumstantial evidence is found missing..
-10-
IX. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that against the Opposite-party nos.2
and 3 had complete intention and circumstance for killing of the deceased
and they were seen by the witnesses along with the deceased at the place of
occurrence.
X. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
pleased to set
aside the judgment and order dated 21 st May ,
2011 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey ,
learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track
Court No.3 Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.283 of
2008/ 153 of 2008 and convict the Opposite-party
nos. 2 and 3 for the charges leveled against him .
AND/OR
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Raj Kumar Prasad ,son of Sri Naresh Prasad ,
Resident of Mohalla- Betwan Bazar , Datta Colony , P.S. Kashim Bazar ,
District – Munger.
VERSUS
2. Ragini Devi, daughter of Arun Kumar ,wife of Raj Kumar Prasad ,
Resident of Mohalla- Ghosi Tola , P.S. Kashim Bazar , District – Munger.
To,
-2-
dated 03.05.2011 passed in Maintenance Case No.4M/2007 by learned Sri
Bateshwar Nath Pandey , Principal Judge , Family Court , Munger ,whereby
and where under the learned Principal Judge passed an order to pay the
amount of Rs.3,000/- to the Opposite-party no.2 and Rs.2,000/- to the minor
son of Opposite-party no.2 per month by 10th of every months.
2. That, the petitioner has never moved before this Hon'ble Court
previously against the impugned order .
3. That, the facts of the case of Opposite-party no.2 as well as
rejoinder filed by the petitioner has been mentioned in the impugned order
itself in which admittedly the marriage was solemnized between the
petitioner and Opposite-party no.2 on 28.05.2000 . The allegation leveled
against the petitioner has been categorically denied by the petitioner and on
the other hand the petitioner and his parents were being tortured by the
Opposite-party no.2 by different mode of activities . The case which was
earlier lodged by Opposite-party no.2 was found to be false by Deputy
Superintendent of Police and on considered opinion of the police they were
-3-
directed to lead their happy conjugal life but the Opposite-party was
adamant to torture her in-laws and her husband .
4. That, lastly she lodged a false case in which the petitioner was
remanded into judicial custody and after being released on bail he is facing
the present case.
5. That, the petitioner is completely unemployed person and he is
fully dependant on his father and his income is so meager that he is quite
unable to give maintenance to Opposite-party no.2 as per the impugned
order i.e. total Rs.5,000/- .
6. That, it has come in the rival testimony of the witnesses and
undisputedly the petitioner does not have any Computer Coaching Centre
and he does not have any knowledge about computer degree . He is simply
passed the Intermediate Examination .He only taught some tiny boys later
on he working as a Staff in the X-Ray shop . So the economical condition is
so bad that he could not lead his personal happy life.
No.4M/2007 by learned Sri Bateshwar Nath

Pandey , Principal Judge , Family Court ,
Munger ,the above named petitioner begs to prefer
following
-4-
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to appreciate that
testimony of witnesses produced by the petitioner by which it has come
undisputedly that the petitioner does not have any computer and its
knowledge and he has no such income of Rs.2,000/- from the said business.
III. For that ,the learned Principal Judge did not scrutinize the
entire material on record as well as the deposition of the witnesses and
passed the impugned order which is quite illegal in the eye of law as well as
on facts.
IV. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to consider the
insufficient means of the petitioner which is apparent from the material on
record.
V. For that, the impugned order is bad in law and on facts and the
same is fit to be set aside.

application, issue notice to the opposite-party
no.2 ,call for the records of the case and after
the order dated 03.05.2011 passed in Maintenance
Case No.4M/2007 by learned Sri Bateshwar Nath
-5-
Pandey , Principal Judge , Family Court , Munger .
AND/OR
AND
passed in Case No.4M of 2007 may kindly be
stayed.

IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
AND
In the matter of :-
Md. Nazim……….…………......……………..……PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar ………………..……………OPPOSITE -PARTY.

To,
-2-
application.
directed against the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2011.
30.01.2009 passed by the learned trial court ,the petitioner preferred
appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,Sitamarhi and during
the pendency of appeal ,the petitioner was enlarged on bail , and
thereafter the petitioner proceeded outside the State i.e. Punjab for his
livelihood as well as his family members since the petitioner is a very
poor and illiterate person after entrusting the pairvi to the learned counsel
appearing on his behalf and the petitioner had under impression that the
learned counsel appearing on his behalf informed about the outcome of the
appeal.
impugned judgment and order dated 12th January, 2011 , the petitioner was
not present in his native village as well as the learned counsel appearing on
Fast Track Court No. 6, Sitamarhi did not inform about the impugned
judgment dated 12.01.2011 ,therefore, the petitioner could not
-3-
surrender before the learned trial court as well as he did not prefer any
revision against the order dated 12.01.2011 within time .
native village then the petitioner could get knowledge about the dismissal
of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated
12.01.2011 then the petitioner immediately surrendered before the learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi on 16.09..2011
and since then the petitioner is behind the bars .
7. That, it is stated that since the petitioner is very poor and
old person ,therefore, in arranging the money to file the present criminal
revision application before this Hon'ble Court ,the family members had
taken some time.

8. That, it is stated that after arranging the money , the pairvikar
of the petitioner contacted the counsel at Patna on 19.09.2011 for filing
the present criminal revision application and accordingly the instant
criminal revision application is being filed before this Hon'ble Court.
-4-
application .
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
AND
In the matter of :-
Devendra Ram ,son of Jhaga Ram
Resident of village- Hanuman Nagar ,Tole- Dhoriyahi , P.S.
Sursand ,District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
the judgment and order dated 15.12.2010 passed by Shri Subodh Kumar
Srivastava , the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.
VII , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 13 of 2008 , whereby and where under
the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to dismiss the
criminal appeal filed by the petitioner with the modification that the order of
conviction under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.500/-
under Section 279 is set aside and affirmed the judgment and order dated
26.02.2008 passed by Sri Prem Kumar Srivastava ,the learned Sub –
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi in G.R. Case No.
99/2003 , Trial No.232 of 2008 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate
has been pleased to convict the petitioner to undergo R.I. for a period of
one year for the offence under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian
Penal Code . In default of payment of fine , the convict shall go under the
imprisonment of three months in addition to the sentence awarded.
-3-
Information Report is that the informant Santosh Kumar was present at
Bhitha More on 28.02.2003 in the evening and got information that while
his father Bal Krishna Jha was returning from Nationalized Primary
School , Pipra Khurd ,a Tractor bearing Reg. No.PGN-5182 dashed him at
about 18.15 hours near the old Rotolona Bridge.
The informant further alleged that the driver of the tractor was
driving the vehicle rashly and negligently due to which his father sustained
severe injury . He was taken to the clinic of Dr. S.K. Jha in serious
condition and in the mid –way he died.
The informant further alleged that driver fled away from the
place of occurrence leaving the tractor there .
Sursand P.S. Case No.19 of 2003 dated 28.02.2003 was instituted
registered for the offences under Sections 279/304(A) of the Indian Penal
Code .
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under the aforementioned
Sections .
-4-
279,304(A) of the Indian Penal Code .
charges were framed against the petitioner after framing the charges , the
case was transferred for trial and disposal to the court of learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi and at the time of

framing of the charge , the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried .
9. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether Five
prosecution witnesses were examined by prosecution such as
P.W.1 :Prafulla Kumar Jha
P.W.2 :Ghuran Mandal
P.W.3 :Durganand Jha
P.W.4. :Manoj Kumar Jha
P.W.5 :Santosh Kumar Jha
documentary evidences were not exhibited on behalf of the prosecution
which is evident from the impugned judgment itself.
11. That, it is stated that according to the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W. 5 the time of occurrence was 6.15 P.M. , according to the P.W.2 the
time of occurrence was 5 P.M. , according to the P.W.3 the time of
-5-
occurrence was 6/7 P.M. in the evening , according to the P.W.4 the time of
occurrence was 7 P.M. in the evening .
12. That, it is stated that there is serious contradiction in the
evidence of the Prosecution witnesses regarding the time of the occurrence.
13. That, it is stated that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
did not establish that at the time of dashing the deceased by the vehicle
they were present at the place of occurrence rather from their evidence it
has established that after the accident they have come at the place of
occurrence and taken the deceased for treatment .
14. That, it is admitted fact that after the accident the driver of the
vehicle in question had fled away and the driver of the vehicle was not
caught hold by any one.
15. That, it is stated that there was no eye witness of the
occurrence rather all the witnesses are hearsay witness of the occurrence but
they allegedly claimed as the eye witness .
16. That, it is stated that the prosecution has failed to examine the
person of the vicinity of the place of occurrence and the prosecution has also
failed to examine the doctor , owner of the vehicle and Investigating Officer
of the case.
17. That, it is stated that merely on the basis of suspicion ,the name
of the petitioner has come in the present case that the petitioner was driving
the vehicle in question .
-6-
18. That, it is stated that in the evidences of witnesses serious
contradiction to each other .
Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi , without taking into consideration the
material available on record , has been pleased to convict the petitioner to
undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304(A)
of the Indian Penal Code and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence
under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code . In default of payment of fine ,
the convict shall go under the imprisonment of three months in addition to
the sentence awarded vide judgment and order on the point of sentence
dated 26.02.2008.
20. That, it is stated that against the order dated 26.02.2008 passed
by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at
Sitamarhi ,the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal which was registered as
Cr. Appeal No.13 of 2008 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner
was released on bail .
-7-
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. VII
petitioner with the modification that the order of conviction under Section
279 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 is set
aside and affirmed the judgment and order dated 26.02.2008 passed by
Sri Prem Kumar Srivastava ,the learned Sub –Divisional Judicial

Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi in G.R. Case No. 99/2003 , Trial No.232 of
2008.
dismissed on 15.12.2010 with some modification of the judgment and
order passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,Pupri at
Sitamarhi but the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in
the appeal did not inform the petitioner about the dismissal of appeal and
when the petitioner had come his native village , then he got knowledge
about the dismissal of appeal then he immediately surrendered before the ld
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at Sitamarhi on 22.06.2011 and
since then the petitioner is languishing in jail custody .
-8-
A true photo stat copy of the custody
application.

Sri Subodh Kumar Srivastava , the learned
Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.
VII , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 13 of 2008 as
also the judgment and order dated 26.02.2008
passed by Sri P.K. Srivastava ,the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Pupri at
G.R. No.99 of 2003 , the above named petitioner
the other following
GROUNDS:
-9-
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was
neither arrested on the spot .

contradiction in between the evidence of the witnesses about the time of
the occurrence .
trustworthy .
failed to examine the doctor , Investigating Officer , owner of the vehicle as
well as person of the vicinity where the accident took place .
-10-
witnesses are not the eye witness rather they are hear-say witness and they
had come at the place of occurrence after accident of the deceased .
failed to examine the owner of the vehicle ,who is one of the witness to say
that at the time of occurrence who was driving the vehicle in question .
justice.
passed by Sri Subodh Kumar Srivastava , the
Court No. VII , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 13 of
-11-
26.02.2008 passed by Sri P.K. Srivastava ,the
arising out of G.R. No.99 of 2003
AND/OR

A ND

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Ram Govind Singh , son of Sri Ram Chandra Singh ,
Resident of village- Jalasi , P.S. Sahiyara , District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Ram Lakhan Singh @ Lakhan Singh ,son of Late Ram Awatar Singh ,
3. Shashi Ranjan Singh ,son of Sahdeo Singh ,
4. Sahdeo Singh ,son of Late Ram Awatar Singh ,
5. Alok Singh ,son of Sahdeo Singh ,
6. Sri Bhagwan Singh , son of Ram Lakhan Singh @ Lakhan Singh
All resident of village- Jalasi , P.S. Sahiyara , District –
Sitamarhi.
To,
the judgment dated 20 th day of April, 2011 and order dated 21 st day of
April ,2011 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey , learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.3 Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.58 of
2006/ 68 of 2006 arising out of Sahiyara P.S. Case No.22 of 2005
registered for the offences under Sections 323,341,324,307,504,379/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section -27 of the Arms Act , whereby and
where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to
discharge the Opposite-party no.2 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and also the Opposite-party no. 3 to 6 under Section 504 and 342 of
the Indian Penal Code on nonest ground though against the Opposite-party
nos. 2 to 6 have ample material on record to convict them under the
aforesaid Sections.
-3-
Report , which was lodged on the basis of Fardbeyan of the petitioner
(P.W.5) recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector namely S.S. Thakur at Sadar
Hospital , Sitamarhi at 1 P.M. on 10.04.2005 , in brief , is that cousin
brother of the petitioner (informant ) namely Ram Adesh Singh (P.W.6)
was standing on the land of his door at 7 A.M. on 10.04.2005 when
accused Sahdeo Singh came and asked him why he was piling on his
land ,whereupon injured Ram Adesh Singh ( P.W.6) told him that he was
staking on his own land upon which accused Sahdeo Singh shouted calling
other accused to come with Lathi , Spear and Pistol and put to death
him .It is further said that upon which accused Ram Lakhan Singh having
armed with Khanti in his hand accused Sri Bhagwan Singh having armed
with country made pistol in his hand ,accused Shashi Ranjan Singh having
armed with Lathi in his hand , accused Alok Singh having armed with piece
of bamboo in his hand rushed there and started assault to Ram Adesh
Singh. It is further said that accused Ram Lakhan Singh gave Khanti blow
on the head of Ram Adesh Singh as a result of which Ram Adesh Singh
fell down on the ground in unconscious position . It is further said that
accused Bhagwan Singh opened fire at Chandradeo Singh but the same was
missed . Accused Shashi Ranjan Singh and Alok Singh assaulted
Chandradeo Singh
-4-
with land and when wife of Ram Adesh Singh namely Veena Devi (P.W.4)
and mother of the informant ( P.W.3) came to rescue then the accused
persons also assaulted them . It is further said that when the informant
began intervening, accused Sahdeo Singh and other accused dragged him
to their house , having put Gamachha around on his neck and started beating
him and accused Shashi Ranjan Singh snatched golden chain weighing 7
gram and accused Bhagwan Singh took out Rs.10,000/- from the pocket of
the informant and thereafter the villagers assembled there and intervened
the quarrel and informant was saved.
proceeded with the investigation and during the course of investigation ,the
police recorded the statement of so many independent witnesses in the case
–diary ,who fully supported the prosecution version but the police
submitted charge-sheet against the Opposite-party nos.2 to 6 only under
Sections 341,323,324, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code
police , the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi took cognizance
against the Opposite-party nos.2 to 6 Under Sections 323,341,324,504/34
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code after going through the material available
in the case-diary .
-5-
framed against the Opposite-party no.2 under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code and against the Opposite-party nos. 3 to 6 under Section
323,504, 341 of the Indian Penal Code .
P.W.1 : Chandradeo Singh
P.W.2 : Ram Shrestha Singh
P.W.3 : Fuljharo Devi
P.W.4 : Veena Devi
P.W.5 : Ram Govind Singh (informant )
P.W.6 : Ram Adesh Singh( injured )
P.W.7 : Dr. A.A. Lari
P.W.8 : Ajit Kumar Singh (Investigating Officer of the case)
P.W.9 : Dr. Uday Shankar Priyadarshi
P.W.10 : Dr. Nand Kishore Mishra
Ext.1 :Signature of informant on Fardbeyan
Ext.1/1 :Signature of witness Ram Bahadur Singh on Fardbeyan
Ext.2 : Injury Report
Ext.2/1 : Injury Report of Veena Devi
Ext. 2/2 :Injury Report of Chandradeo Singh

-6-
Ext. 2/3 :Injury Report of Fuljharo Devi,
Ext. 2/4 :Injury of Ram Adesh Singh
Ext.3 :Formal First Information Report
Ext. 4 :Report of Medical Board.
9. That, it is stated that P.W.1 , P.W.3 , P.W.4 , P.W.5 and P.W.6
are the eye witness of the occurrence and all of them are specifically said
that the accused Ram Lakhan Singh gave Khanti blow on the head of
Ramadesh Singh ( P.W.6.) which is grievous in nature and vital part of the
body and all of them are also fully supported the prosecution version
about the injury received by other P.Ws.
10. That, it is stated that the medical evidence has also supported
the prosecution version and P.W.7 ,P.W.9 and P.W.10 in their evidence also
fully supported the prosecution version .
11. That, it is stated that the P.W.10 his evidence proved that the
injuries received by P.W.6 is grievance in nature .
12. That, it is stated that all the prosecution witnesses examined
on behalf of the prosecution had fully supported the prosecution case .
consideration ,the consistent evidence of the P.Ws. in their evidence
discharged the Opposite-party nos.3 to 6 under Section 504 and 342 of the
Indian Penal Code and also discharged the Opposite-party no.2 under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and convict the Opposite-party no.2
-7-
under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code since it was culpable homicide
though in the present case there is sufficient ingredients are available for
conviction of the Opposite-party no.2 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code .
14. That, it is stated that the learned Additional Sessions Judge
has been pleased to convict the Opposite-party no.2 under Section 308 of
the Indian Penal Code and convict the Opposite-party nos. 3 to 6 under
Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code .
15. That, it is stated that in the present case there is no application
for offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code rather there is
sufficient ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code is available but the learned trial court convicted the Opposite-party
no.2 under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. .
of the judgment dated 20.04.2011 and order dated
21.04. 2011 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad
Pandey , learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast
Track Court No.3 Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial
No.58 of 2006/ 68 of 2006 , the above named
GROUNDS:
-8-
II. For that , while setting free the Opposite-parties under Section
504,342 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code ,the learned trial court failed to
appreciate that there is ample material against them to convict under such
Sections.
III. For that , while setting free the Opposite-parties under Section
appreciate that there is consistent evidence against the Opposite-party
no.2 that he gave Khanti blow on the head of the P.W.6 ,which is
grievance in nature .
IV. For that , while setting free the Opposite-parties under Section
appreciate that there is common intention of the Opposite-parties to commit
murder of the P.W.6 and they also assaulted other P.Ws.
V. For that , while setting free the Opposite-parties under Section
appreciate that firstly the P.W.6 was treated in Sadar Hospital ,Sitamarhi
and taking the seriousness of the offence P.W.6 was referred to Patna
Medical College and Hospital and the said contention was also supported
by the Medical Board.

-9-
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party no. 2 under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code from the charges leveled against him.
VI. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that there is
ample material available on record to convict the Opposite-party no.2 under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no application under
Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code .
VII. For that, the learned trial court only minimized the sentence
convict the Opposite-party no.2,the learned trial court convict the Opposite-
party no.2 under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code though in the
present case there is no application of offence under Section 308 of the
Indian Penal Code rather the sufficient ingredients of offence under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code is available against the Opposite-party no.2.
VIII. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
pleased to set
aside the part of the judgment dated 20 th day of
April, 2011 and order dated 21st day of April
-10-
,2011 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey ,
no. 3 to 6 for the charges leveled against them
under Section 504 and 342 of the Indian Penal
Code and Opposite-party no.2 under Section 307
AND/OR

CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2011.
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Satish Kumar @ Parmanand Rai, son of Kapildeo Rai,
Resident of village- Basanta Jehanabad , P.S. Lalganj ,District –Vaishali at
Hajipur.
VERSUS
To,
-2-

and order dated 20.06.2011 passed by Sri Kamal Kishore Sinha ,the learned
Additional Sessions Judge ,F.T. C. –II, Vaishali at Hajipur in Criminal
Appeal No.09 of 2011 , whereby and where under the learned Additional
Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner for
his release and also confirmed the order dated 11.03.2011 passed by Sri
Sumit Kumar , the learned Principal Member, Juvenile Justice
Board ,Vaishali at Hajipur in Trial No.498 of 2011 , G.R. No.3542 of 2010
arising out of Lalganj P.S. Case No.236 of 2010 dated 21.08.2010
attributing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by which
the appellant was refused to be enlarge on bail by the learned Juvenile
Justice Board , Vaishali at Hajipur.
Report in brief is that the informant Geeta Devi gave her Fardbeyan before
the Sub-Inspector of Lalganj Police – Station on 21.09.2010 at 10 P.M.
alleging therein that on 21.09.2010 at 5 P.M. when her Gotani Rajgir
-3-
Devi had gone at the Bathan of Jamun Rai ,she saw that the petitioner
was committing rape with the daughter of the informant namely Ujala
Kumari .
The informant further alleged that upon which her Gotani
raised alarm and called her Upon which the informant along with her
Gotani went inside the Bathan and saw the petitioner ,committing rape
upon Ujala Kumari .
The informant further alleged that on alarm villagers
assembled there and caught hold the petitioner and also informed the
police .
The informant further alleged that the blood was oozing from
the private part of her daughter namely Ujala Kumari.
informant , Lalganj Police drew up a formal First Information Report
and registered a case being Lalganj P.S. Case No.236 of 2010 dated
21.08.2010 attributing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code .
F.I.R. of Lalganj P.S. Case No.236of
2010 is annexed hereto and marked
as ANNEXURE-“1” to this
application.
-4-
Juvenile Justice Board, Vaishali at Hajipur being Trial No.498 of 2011

arising out of Lalganj P.S. Case No.236 of 2010 dated 21.08.2010 attributing
offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code .
whatsoever and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the
informant for some oblique purposes .
7. That, according to the First Information Report ,the informant
alleged that firstly her Gotani saw that the petitioner was committing rape
with the victim in Bathan and thereafter she called the informant from the
house then both went in Bathan and saw that the petitioner was committing
rape with the victim which is not believable by any prudent person .
8. That, it is stated that for the moment if the Gotani of the
informant seen the petitioner along with the victim in compromising
condition ,she should have firstly objected them to do so then she called the
informant but she did not do so, which falsifies the prosecution version
itself.
Report ,the police proceeded with the investigation and during the course of
investigation no any independent witnesses have supported the prosecution
version rather they denied about the occurrence and also raised suspicion
about the character of the informant .
-5-
10. That, it is stated that during the course of investigation ,it has
also come that the petitioner has good character boy .

11. That, it is stated that since the petitioner was juvenile at the
time of occurrence ,therefore, the case of the petitioner was transferred to
the Court Juvenile Justice Board , Vaishali at Hajipur ,wherein the learned
Juvenile Justice Board declared the petitioner as a juvenile .
12. That, on the basis of declaration of Juvenile Justice Board , an
application for bail was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned
Juvenile Justice Board , Vaishali at Hajipur which was rejected by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 11.03.2011 .
learned Juvenile Justice Board ,
Vaishali at Hajipur is annexed
13. That, against the aforesaid order dated 11.03.2011 passed by
the learned Juvenile Justice Board , the petitioner preferred a Criminal
Appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge , Vaishali at Hajipur being
Cr. Appeal No.09 of 2011 ,which was rejected by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge ,F.T.C. – II , Vaishali at Hajipur vide his order dated
20.06.2011.
-6-
14. That, the petitioner is a man of means having movable and
immovable properties and ,therefore, there is no chance of his absconding
and /or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
15. That, the petitioner has got a bright career and further
detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, ruined the life of the
petitioner.
16. That, the petitioner is languishing in jail custody since
21.09.2010 without any fault.
17. That, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has
never been implicated in any other criminal case.
18. That, the allegation against the petitioner is completely false
,baseless and fabricated ,therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on
bail.
19. That, the petitioner undertakes to make himself available
before the court as and when required if he is granted bail by this Hon'ble
Court.
dated 20.06.2011 passed by Sri Kamal Kishore
Sinha ,the learned Additional Sessions
Judge ,F.T. C. –II, Vaishali at Hajipur in
Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2011 , the above named
-7-
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned judgment and order is bad in law as
well as on facts.
II. For that, while rejecting the Criminal appeal the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the prolonged custody
would not be in the interest of juvenile.
III. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal ,the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that nothing has been brought
on record by the prosecution that if the petitioner is released on bail, he
would commit such offence again .
IV. For that, the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions
Judge is since based on conjectures and surmises ,it cannot be sustained in
the eye of law ,unless there is a positive material on record that the
petitioner would commit such offence again ,if released on bail.
V. For that , while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that there is admitted enmity
in between the family of the informant and the petitioner ,therefore, the
instant false case was lodged by the informant against the petitioner .
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that it has come during the
-8-
course of investigation that the petitioner is a social boy and due to some
enmity the informant has lodged the instant case.
VII. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal ,the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that according to the First
Information Report firstly the Gotani of the informant saw the petitioner in
comprising condition with the victim but she did not object to do so rather
she came to her house called the informant then both entered in the Bathan
which is not believable by any prudent person .
law .
aside the judgment and order dated 20.06.2011
passed by Sri Kamal Kishore Sinha ,the learned
Additional Sessions Judge ,F.T. C. –II, Vaishali
at Hajipur in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2011
and be further pleased to direct for release of the
petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the learned
Juvenile Justice Board , Vaishali at Hajipur in
connection with Trial No.498 of 2001 , arising out
-9-
of Lalganj P.S. Case No.236 of 2010 dated
21.08.2010 , G.R.No.3542 of 2010
AND/OR

Cr. Misc. NO._________________/OF 2009.
………………………..…PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and another…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The humble compromise petition on
behalf of the petitioners and
Opposite-party no.2;
1. That, the petitioners have filed this quashing application
before this Hon'ble Court for quashing the order of cognizance dated . .
passed by Smt. Saroj Kumari, learned Judicial Magistrate ,1 st Class, Saran at

Chapra in Complaint Case No.1535 of 2008 under Sections 498(A) and
323 of the Indian Penal Code .
-2-
2. That, during the pendency of the aforesaid case, at the instance
of well wishers , relatives and friends of both the parties ,the petitioners
and Opposite-party no.2 have compromised their cases and settled their
disputes outside the premises of the court.
3. That, both the parties have decided to compromise /withdraw
their cases pending in the different courts . Complaint Case No.1633(C) of
2006 pending in the court of Sri Ghanshyam Singh , learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class , Patna , Mat. Case No.512 of 2006 pending in the
court of learned Additional Principal Judge , Family Court, Patna,
Complaint Case No.1535 of 2008 pending in the court of Sri
,learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saran , Maintenance Case No.100
of 2008 pending in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Saran . All the aforesaid cases will be compromised /withdrawn by the
respective parties.
4. That, both the parties have decided to leave tier personal lives
with their own way .The petitioner namely Braj Bhushan Mishra
(husband ) and Opposite-party no.2 namely Prem Lata Devi @ Pinki have
decided to take a decree of divorce from the competent court of law .
Hence either the party has got no claim or complaint against each other.
5. That, since both the parties have compromised their cases and
settled their disputes outside the premises of the court . Therefore, both the
parties have entered into an agreement on . .
-3-
The photo stat copy of the agreement
dated . . is annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE- “A” to
this petition.
6. That, it is submitted that since the aforesaid cases have been
compromised between the parties due to intervention of the well
wishers ,friends and relatives of both the parties ,the order taking
cognizance dated
. . passed in Complaint Case No.1535 of 2008 may be quashed.
be pleased to quash the order taking cognizance
dated . . passed by Smt. Saroj Kumari ,
the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Saran at
Chapra in Complaint Case No.1535 of 2008.
O R/ A N D
may deem fit and proper .
And for this ,the petitioners and Opposite-party no.2 shall ever pray.
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
Section 19(4) of the Family Court
Act, 1984;
AND
In the matter of :-
Tarun Kumar Singh ,son of Mohan Singh ,
Resident of village- Paro Mathia , P.S. Barhat ,District – Jamui.
VERSUS
1.The State of Bihar
2. Pallavi Devi @ Gudia wife of Tarun Kumar Singh , daughter of
Manoj Kumar Singh , permanent resident of village- Banahara , P.O.
Banahara , P.S. Kharagpur , District – Munger at present residing at Naya

Tola , Bihar, P.O. and P.S. Jamui ,District – Jamui.
……….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
1. That, this petition has been filed for setting aside the order
dated 16.05.2011 passed by Sri Kameshwar Nath Rai ,the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in Maintenance Case
No.50(M)/2009 ,allowing a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to his wife Pallavi
Devi from the date of filing of this petition and pay the amount of
maintenance allowance by 15th of each successive month.

2. That, the petitioner has not comet to this Hon'ble Court for
filing previously any petition against this impugned order.
3. That, a petition for maintenance was filed by the Opposite-
party no.2 before the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Jamui stating
therein that she is the legally wedded wife of petitioner and marriage was
performed in the year 2008 as per Hindu Rites and customs.
4. That, it is stated that after one week of the marriage , the
petitioner along with his family members started torturing her for non-
fulfillment of their demand of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lac ) and kept her
confined in a room for two days without meal after brutally assaulting her.
-3-
5. That, according to the Opposite-party no.2 (wife of the
petitioner ) the Opposite-party no.2 contacted her father by telephone ,who
came ate her matrimonial home and paid Rs.20,000/- to the father of the
petitioner and her father brought her to her paternal house.
6. That, it is further stated that Opposite-party no.2 came to her
matrimonial home on 05.05.2009 with petitioner and there the petitioner
and his relatives snatched her all ornaments and belongings and ultimately
they ousted from her matrimonial home. She came to her paternal home and
filed a dowry torture case as well as a petition under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner and his family members
on 19.06.2009 .
7. That, as per statement of the Opposite-party no.2 ,petitioner is
earning Rs.15,000/- per month working in Raurkela apart from having 10
Bighas of fertile land from which he (petitioner ) has annual income of Rs.
One Lac. It is also alleged by the Opposite-party no.2 that petitioner has
been neglecting and refusing to maintain the requirement of the Opposite-
party no.2.
8. That, it is pertinent to mention here that without analyzing the
statement of petitioner in its totality the learned court below instead of the
petitioner to award maintenance allowance per month Rs.2,500/- to the
Opposite-party no.2 (wife ) . It is being directed by the learned court below
on 16th May, 2011.
-4-
9. That, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized in the year
2008 with the Opposite-party no.2 ,the conjugal life of the petitioner and
Opposite-party no.2 has been on peacefully for two months after the
marriage.
10. That, it is remarkable to mention here that one Chandan
Kumar Singh, who is the cousin brother of the petitioner used to come in
the house of the petitioner time to time. His continuous visit in the house
of the petitioner twined into the illicit relationship with the wife of the
petitioner .
11. That, it is also important to mention here that the wife of the
petitioner started leading adulterous life to which petitioner raised protest .

She came to her paternal home. There she did not stop her relation with
Chandan Kumar Singh ( cousin brother of the petitioner ) .
12. That, all the request went in vain and ultimately ,petitioner
was compelled to file a divorce case against the Opposite-party no.2 . The
Matrimonial Case No.54/2009 was filed by the petitioner on 15 th June,
2009.
13. That, in the reaction of the matrimonial case filed by the
petitioner , Opposite-party no.2 filed a counter case of dowry torture and
Maintenance Case No.50/2009 on 19th June, 2009 after four days of the
filing of the Matrimonial case.
-5-
14. That, it is pertinent to mention here that it clearly indicates
that the maintenance case is only the reactionary action of the Opposite-
party no.2 i.e. wife of the petitioner ( Pallavi Devi).
15. That, the Opposite-party no.2 lodged a Maintenance Case
bearing No.50(M) of 2009 in connivance with her father and other family
members . The case has been filed by the wife of the petitioner in the court
of learned Principal Judge , Family Court, Jamui.
It has become crystal clear from the above noted paragraphs
that it is only counter blast of the matrimonial case filed against the
Opposite-party no.2 by the petitioner on 15th June, 2009.

16. That, the reality is that petitioner is a contract labourer at
Bokaro and his father possess only one Bigha of un-irrigated land where his
father and brother resides. He earns only Rs.2,500/- per month approx as
contract labourer .
17. That, in fact the Opposite-party no.2 ( Pallavi Devi ) does
private tuition and runs stitching centre and is able to maintain herself.
18. That, the fixation of award has been made on the basis of two
things i.e. being an employee in the private company at Bokaro and
getting Rs.1,200/- to Rs.5,000/- per month as well as Rs.1,00,000(One
Lac ) from the land of ten bighas both are absolutely false . Therefore, the
fixation of this award is not justified .
-6-
19. That, inspite of all these better experience ,petitioner is
always ready to keep his wife with full dignity and honour.
20. That, it is very very important to mention here that Pallavi
Devi ,her father and family members are habituated in filing the false
case. One Complaint case which finally turned as to First Information
Report i.e. P.S. Case No.08/2010 dated 11 th February, 2010 under
Sections 341,323,379,504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27 of the
Arms Act and 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged by Pallavi Devi
(Opposite-party no.2) against innocent Tarun Kumar ,his father Mohan
Singh , uncle Vijay Singh and uncle Sohan Singh and Nanad Sushma
Kumari . The police made a proper investigation of this stereo typed
allegation which appears itself false at a glance , found absolutely baseless
and false. The Deputy Superintendent of Police ,Jamui had submitted his
final supervision report on 20.03.2010 in which it has been stated clearly
that all the allegations leveled against Tarun Kumar and his family
members are false and fabricated. This reveals the mental word of
Pallavi Devi and her family members.
21. That , in the facts and circumstances in this case petitioner is
not in a position to pay the award of Rs.2,500 per month to the Opposite-
party no.2.
dated 16.05.2011 passed by Sri Kameshwar Nath
-7-
Rai ,the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jamui in Maintenance Case No.50(M)/2009 , the
following
GROUNDS:

synthesized the case in its totality and due to which learned court could
not come to a reasonable stage.
III. For that ,the learned court below has not properly appreciated
the evidence and statements lead by the petitioner ,whereas much
emphasis was given on evidence of Opposite-party no.2.
IV. For that, the amount of payment of maintenance is beyond
the capacity of the petitioner .
V. For that, the petitioner is ready to keep his wife full dignity and
honour.
VI. For that, in reality petitioner is a contract labourer and the
amount of maintenance is Rs.2,500/- per month which is nothing but
excessiveness and excessiveness is the Philosophy of destruction .
-8-
Therefore, it is not a balanced and reasonable order of the learned court
below.
VII. For that, when it has become clear that the petitioner has been
made an escape goat by the father of Opposite-party no.2 and relatives of
his wife and his wife is indulged with illicit relationship with the cousin
brother ( Chandan Kumar Singh ) of the petitioner and living continuously
in her Maike and leading adulterous life.

VIII. For that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
for the records of the learned court below and
Kameshwar Nath Rai ,the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Jamui in Maintenance Case
No.50(M)/2009.
AND/OR
-9-
A ND
16.05.2011 passed by Sri Kameshwar Nath
Rai ,the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jamui in Maintenance Case No.50(M)/2009 may
kindly be stayed.
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.

AND
In the matter of :-
Shankar Sahani……………......……………..……PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
application.
directed against the order dated 19.05.2008 .
06.03.1997 passed by the learned trial court ,the petitioner preferred
appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,Sitamarhi and during
the pendency of appeal ,the petitioner was enlarged on bail , and
thereafter the petitioner proceeded outside the State for his livelihood as
well as his family members since the petitioner is a very poor and
illiterate person after entrusting the pairvi to the learned counsel appearing
on his behalf and the petitioner had under impression that the learned
counsel appearing on his behalf informed about the outcome of the appeal.
impugned judgment and order dated 19.05.2008, the petitioner was not
present in his native village as well as the learned counsel appearing on
Fast Track Court No. VI, Sitamarhi did not inform about the impugned
order dated 19.05.2008 ,therefore, the petitioner could not surrender
-3-
before the learned trial court as well as he did not prefer any revision
against the order dated 19.05.2008 within time .
native village then the police arrested the petitioner on 13.09.2010 ,then
the petitioner could get knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal filed
by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 06.03.1997 with
some modification and since then the petitioner is behind the bars .
7. That, it is stated that since the petitioner is very poor
persons ,therefore, in arranging the money to file the present criminal

taken some time.
of the petitioner contacted the counsel at Patna in the third week of
March, 2011 for filing the present criminal revision application and
accordingly the instant criminal revision application is being filed before
this Hon'ble Court.
-4-
application .
AND/OR
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
AND
In the matter of :-
Shankar Sahani ,son of Late Bahadur Sahani,
Resident of village- Panchtaki Yadu ,P.S. Bairgania ,District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order dated 19.05.2008 passed by Shri Narsingh Prasad , the learned
Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. VI , Sitamarhi in Cr.
Appeal no. 19 of 1997 , whereby and where under the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirmed the judgment and order dated 06.03.2007 passed
by Sri Sajjal Mandilwar ,learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class , Sitamarhi
in G.R. Case No. 1082/86 , Trial No.303/97 with some modification that
the petitioner is convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years
under Section 26/35 of the Arms Act and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
and the petitioner is acquitted from the offence punishable under Section
25(a) of the Arms Act , by which the learned Judicial Magistrate has
been pleased to convict the petitioner Under Section 25(A) ,26/35 of the
Arms Act and sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for three years
under Section 25 of the Arms Act and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in
default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one year and further
sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for three years under Section
26/35 of the Arms Act however all the sentences will run concurrently.
-3-
Information Report is that the Sub-Inspector Rameshwar Singh , Officer-
in-Charge of Bairgania Police -Station recorded his self statement on
04.10.1986 at village –Panchtaki Yadu Chowk alleging therein that on the
same day he along with other police officials and Chaukidar recovered
arms , cartridges and some stolen articles in connection with Case No.52
of 1986 from the house and Bathan of one Acchelal Sahni of village-
Bakhari Malahi Tola ,who in his confessional statement said that Rajendra
Sahni and Shankar Sahni had kept concealed illegal arms in the house of
Shivjee Prasad .It is further alleged that on such information ,the
informant along with the police force cam to village- Panchtaki Yadav
and in presence of two independent witnesses namely Raghuvir Rai and
Adya Rai searched the house in which Rajendra Sahni was living and
during the course of search ,illegal arms and cartridges were recovered
from beneath the bed of Rajendra Sahni .It is further alleged that Rajendra
Sahni could not produce any paper regarding the recovered arms ,while
they were asking from Rajendra Sahani , Shankar Sahani began to flee
away and on chase he was apprehended behind the house of Ramanand
Prasad and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of
Shankar Sahani regarding which he could not produce any paper. It is
-4-
further alleged that all the articles were seized and accordingly seizure
list were prepared .
4. That, on the basis of the aforesaid self written report of the
informant , Bairgania P.S. Case No.64 of 1986 dated 04.10.1986 was
instituted registered for the offences under Sections 25(A) /26/35 of the
Arms Act.
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others under the
aforementioned Sections .
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner and others under
Sections 25(A) /26/35 of the Arms Act.
charges were framed against the petitioner and others and after framing
the charges , the case was transferred for trial and disposal to the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class , Sitamarhi and at the time of framing
of the charge , the petitioner and others pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried .
prosecution witnesses were examined by prosecution such as P.W.1 Adya
-5-
Singh , P.W.2 Gatichand Sah , P.W.3 Rameshwar Singh (informant
himself ) ,P.W.4 Md. Moiuddin Khan (Investigating Officer of the case )
and P.W. 5 Rajendra Paswan.
documentary evidences were also examined on behalf of the prosecution
such as Ext. 1 signature on the First Information Report , Ext. 2 & 2/1
Seizure List , Ext. 3 First Information Report , Ext.4 formal First
Information Report , Ext. 5 Report of Sergeant Major and Ext. 6 Sanction
Report.
11. That, it is stated that on behalf of the defense altogether
seven witnesses were examined .

12. That, it is stated that out of five prosecution witnesses P.W.2
is a formal witness ,who has proved the writing and signature of
Rameshwar Singh on the formal First Information Report whereas the
P.W.5 has been declared hostile.
13. That ,it is stated that informant of the this case was examined
as P.W.3 and P.W.3 in his cross-examination stated that on chase the
petitioner was arrested and on search ,two cartridges were recovered
from his possession .
14. That, it is stated that the P.W.1 in his deposition admitted that
the petitioner was not living in the house of Shivaji Sahani and no arms
have been recovered from his possession .
-6-
15. That ,it is stated that D.W.7 was examined on behalf of the
defense and the said witness in his evidence said that the petitioner was
falsely implicated at the instance of enemies of the petitioner after
showing the so-called recovery of two cartridges .
16. That, it is admitted fact that neither from the possession of the
petitioner any arms was recovered nor the petitioner was arrested on the
place of occurrence .
17. That ,it is stated that the prosecution has failed to produce the
independent witnesses as well as the seizure list witnesses rather all the
prosecution witnesses are police personnel whose statement is not
trustworthy .
contradiction to each other .
19. That, it is stated that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class
Sitamarhi , without taking into consideration the material available on
record , has been pleased to convict the petitioner Under Section
25(A) ,26/35 of the Arms Act and sentenced the petitioner to undergo
R.I. for three years under Section 25 of the Arms Act and also to pay a
fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one
year and further sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for three years
under Section 26/35 of the Arms Act however all the sentences will run
concurrently vide judgment and order dated 06.03.1997.
-7-
by the learned Judicial Magistrate , 1 st Class, Sitamarhi ,the petitioner
preferred a criminal appeal which was registered as Cr. Appeal No.19 of
1997 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner was released on
bail .
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. VI

petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class , Sitamarhi with some modification that the petitioner is
convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section
26/35 of the Arms Act and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and the
petitioner is acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 25(a) of
the Arms Act since there is no recovery of any arms from the possession of
the petitioner .
-8-
dismissed on 19.05.2008 with some modification of the judgment and
order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class , Sitamarhi but
the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the appeal did
not inform the petitioner about the dismissal of appeal and when the
petitioner had come his native village , then the police arrested the
petitioner on 13.09.2010 and produced before the learned Judicial
Magistrate on 13.09.2010 and since then the petitioner is languishing in
jail custody .
A true photo stat copy of the custody

application.
Sri Narsingh Prasad , the learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.VI ,
Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 19 of 1997 as also
the judgment and order dated 06.03.1997 passed
-9-
by Sri Sajjal Mandilwar ,the learned Judicial
Magistrate , 1st Class , Sitamarhi in Trial No.303
of 1997 arising out of G.R. No. 1082 of 1986 ,
following
GROUNDS:
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was
neither arrested on the spot nor from his possession any arms was
recovered .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that without any arms
there is no use of cartridge rather the police had allegedly shown the so-
called recovery two cartridges from the possession of the petitioner on the
instance of some enemy of the petitioner .
-10-
failed to produce any independent witness even the seizure list witness to
establish his case rather all the witnesses are interested witness and their
statements are not trustworthy .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the P.W.1 in his
evidence deposed that the petitioner was not living in Shivaji Sahani and
no arms has been recovered from his possession .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that since the case lodged
by the informant is false and concocted ,therefore, no any independent
witnesses have come to support the case of the informant .
justice.
-11-
passed by Sri Narsingh Prasad , the learned
Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.
VI , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 19 of 1997 as
also the judgment and order dated 06.03.1997
passed by Sri Sajjal Mandilwar ,the learned
Judicial Magistrate , 1st Class , Sitamarhi in Trial
No.303 of 1997 arising out of G.R. No. 1082 of
1986.
AND/OR
A ND
the learned Judicial Magistrate ,1st Class
Sitamarhi in Trial No. 303 of 1997 arising out of
G.R. No.1082 of 1986.
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.

Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Sanjay Kumar, son of Sri Ram Shankar Prasad Singh,
Resident of village-Tilak Tajpur , P.O. Pota Madhaul ,P.S.
Runnisaidpur ,District - Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Sanjana Devi @ Sajana Devi ,wife of Sanjay Kumar and daughter of
Jawahar Prasad Singh , presently residing at Saraiya Gopal , P.S. Patahi,
District – East Champaran at Motihari.
To,
-2-

and order dated 22.02.2011 passed by Sri Dr. Kumar Deo Dutta , the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in Maintenance Case
No.152 of 2007 , whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has
been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month
to the Opposite-party no.2 by way of maintenance from the date of filing of
the maintenance case . The petitioner has been further directed to make
payment of arrears of amount of maintenance by 10th March,2011.
that the Opposite-party no.2 filed the maintenance case in the court of
learned Principal Judge , Family Court, Motihari on 20.09.2006 alleging
therein that the Opposite-party no.2 was married with the petitioner as per
Hindu Rites and custom in the month of July, 1999. It is further alleged
that after the marriage the Opposite-party no. 2 went to her matrimonial
-3-
house with the petitioner and after some time the petitioner and his other
family members of her in-law’s family used to pressurize the Opposite-
party no.2 to demand Rs.2 Lacs cash and one Hero Honda Motorcycle
from her father. It is further alleged that the Opposite-party no.2 declined
to demand such amount and article from her father on the pressure of the
petitioner and other family members of her matrimonial house upon

which the Opposite-party has been assaulted and ousted from her
matrimonial house on 13.06.2006. It is further alleged from the wedlock of
the petitioner and the Opposite-party no.2,a female child was born which
is aged about 6 years on the date of filing of the maintenance case . It is
further alleged that the Opposite-party no.2 is living in her Parental house
along with her daughter but the parents of the Opposite-party are unable to
maintain the Opposite-party and her daughter since the parents of the
Opposite-party no.2 are economical weak . It is further alleged the
petitioner is working as Teacher and earning Rs.6,000/-per month and
apart from the petitioner has landed property area 15 Bighas and Pucca
house at Sitamarhi. It is further said that the daughter of the Opposite-
party no.2 is school going and the Opposite-party no.2 is unable to
maintain herself and provide necessary facility for her daughter.
Judge, Family Court, Motihari was registered as Maintenance Case
-4-
No.152 of 2007.
application.
5. That, it is pertinent to mention here that the Opposite-party
no.2 herself is not ready to live with the petitioner and she deserted the
life of the petitioner after best efforts made by him .
6. That, it is stated that for reconciliation of the matter between
the parties a Panchayati was held on 25.02.2007 and in the Panchayati the
Opposite-party no.2 herself refused to live with the petitioner then a
decision was taken in the Panchayati that the petitioner pay a sum of
Rs.86,000/- to the Opposite-party no.2 in lieu of her maintenance and the
said amount was duly accepted by the father Opposite-party no.2 .
7. That, it is stated that the petitioner also filed a case in the
court of learned Permanent Lok Adalat , Sitamarhi for restitution of their
conjugal life with the Opposite-party no.2 on 02.06.2007 which was
registered as PL ( MAT ) Case No.25 of 2007 .
8. That, it is stated that after institution of the case ,the
Permanent Lok Adalat issued notice to the Opposite-party no.2 but she did
not enter her appearance before the Lok Adalat ,therefore, the learned
Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 09.09.2008 advised the petitioner
-5-
to file the case before the Principal Judge, Family Court since the matter
could not be compromised .

9. That, it is stated that after service of notice by the Permanent
Lok Adalat ,Sitamarhi for restitution of the conjugal life , the Opposite-
party no.2 filed the present Maintenance case for maintenance on
20.09.2007 .
10. That, the fact is that the Opposite-party no.2 herself did not
ready to live with the petitioner even after the best efforts of the petitioner
rather the petitioner ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 with full dignity
and surety .
11. That, it is stated that on behalf of the Opposite-party no.2
altogether seven witnesses were examined .
12. That, it is stated that the Panch namely Rakesh Kumar filed
his deposition before the learned Principal Judge ,Family Court on
affidavit wherein he categorically said that a Panchayati was held on
25.02.2007 for reconciliation of the matter but the Opposite-party no.2
herself is not ready to live with the petitioner then it was decided that a
sum of Rs.86,000/- was handed over to the Opposite-party no.2 as
-6-
maintenance and the same was duly accepted by the father of the
Opposite-party no.2.
deposition of Rakesh Kumar on

affidavit is annexed herewith and
application.
13. That, it is stated that the father of the Opposite-party no.2 was
examined as A.W. 6 and in his deposition the said fact was also admitted
the father of the Opposite-party no.2 after Panchayati a sum of Rs.86,000/-
was handed over to him for the maintenance of the Opposite-party no.2 .
deposition of father of the Opposite-
party no.2 is annexed herewith and
application.
14. That, it is true that the petitioner is working as a Teacher in
D.A.V. School and earning Rs.6,000/- per month but it is palpably false to
say that the petitioner hand the landed property of 15 Bighas but the fact is
that in the name of the petitioner only 1 Acre 56 Decimals lands is
belonging .
-7-
15. That, since the petitioner is doing his job as Teacher at
Pakur ,therefore, from his earning most of the money is spent for
maintaining himself and since the Pakur is situated far flung from the
native village of the petitioner ,therefore, there is no income from the
agricultural lands in absence of the proper care of the landed property .
16. That, it is stated that the allegation of love affairs of the
petitioner with another girl is completely false and fabricated and to
prove this allegation ,the Opposite-party no.2 did not produce any evidence.
17. That, it is stated that during the pendency of the maintenance
case, the learned Principal Judge vide interim order dated 05.05.2008
directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance of the
Opposite-party no.2 ,which was also disproportionate to the income of the
petitioner but under compulsion the said amount is regularly paying to the
passed the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2011 , whereby and
where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to direct the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month to the Opposite-party no.2
by way of maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance case . The
petitioner has been further directed to make payment of arrears of amount
of maintenance by 10th March,2011.
-8-
Sri Dr. Kumar Deo Dutta , the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Motihari in Maintenance
Case No.152 of 2007 ,the above named
GROUNDS:
Opposite-party no.2 is herself not ready to live with the petitioner since the
petitioner himself filed a matrimonial case for restitution of their conjugal
rights in the court of learned Permanent Lok Adalat , Sitamarhi ,therefore,
the Opposite-party no.2 is not entitled to get any maintenance or interim
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
-9-
Opposite-party no.2 with full dignity and surety ,therefore, she would
cannot be entitled to any maintenance under the provisions of Section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in any event an order for payment of
interim maintenance cannot be passed with retrospective effect i.e. from the
date of filing of maintenance case.
VI. For that, while fixing the maintenance ,the learned Principal
Judge failed to appreciate that it is admitted fact that the petitioner is
earning only Rs.6,000/- per month ,therefore, the amount of maintenance of
Rs.4,500/- disproportionate to the income of the petitioner .
VII. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that a Panchayati was held in which
the Opposite-party no.2 is refused to live with the petitioner then it was
decided by the Punches that the amount of Rs.86,000/- is to be paid to the
Opposite-party no.2 in lieu of her maintenance and the said amount was
accepted by the father of the Opposite-party no.2 and the said fact was
admitted by the father of the Opposite-party no. 2 in his evidence .
VIII. For that, while passing the impugned order the Hon'ble Single
Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.2 has failed to
establish the ground for maintenance and he did not produce any evidence
about the landed property of the petitioner .
-10-
IX. For that, the maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge
X. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law .

passed by Sri Dr. Kumar Deo Dutta , the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in
Maintenance Case No.152 of 2007.
AND/OR
AND
No.152 of 2007 may kindly be stayed.

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
AND
In the matter of :-
Dudheshwar Prasad Singh , son of Late Muneshwar Prasad Singh,
Resident of village- Rohua , Raja Ram , P.O. Mushahari Farm , P.S.
Mushahari , District –Muzaffarpur.
VERSUS

To,
-2-
and order dated 26.02.2011 passed by Sri Bal Krishna Verma , the
learned Additional Sessions Judge -IV , Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal no.
31 of 1999 , whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 04.06.2009 passed
by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , East Muzaffarpur in
G.R. No.78 of 2009 ,Trial No.842 of 1999 arising out of Kazi
Mohammadpur P.S. Case No.09 of 1989 , by which the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to convict the petitioner
Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioner
to undergo R.I. for three years .

3. That, Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No.09 of 1989 was
instituted on the basis of written report (Ext.1) of the informant (P.W.1 )
namely Bharat Chaudhary , Junior Engineer .The prosecution case as
spelt out in the First Information Report in brief is that the petitioner was
-3-
Khalasi of Truck bearing Reg. No.BRK-2115 ,which belongs to the office
of National High Way .
It is further alleged that the said Truck was kept in Auto
Mobile Sanatorium , Shyam Nandan Road , Muzaffarpur for its repairing
since 1978 and the petitioner was deputed for watching the said Truck .
It is further alleged that the petitioner informed on 16.08.2008 that the
said Truck was missing from the Garage in between the period
09.08.1988to 15.08.1988 and after receiving such information ,the
informant went for enquiry where he saw that the Garage was not present
on the spot and a new building is stating at the spot where the Garage
was standing . It is further alleged that the informant asked show –cause
from the petitioner but he did not submit any show-cause within time . The
informant suspected that the petitioner and owner of the Garage in
connivance with each other removed the Truck.

4. That, it is stated that on the basis of the aforesaid written
report of the informant , Kazi Mohammadpur Police drew up a formal
First Information Report and registered a case being Kazi Mohammadpur
P.S. Case No.09 of 1989 against the petitioner and the owner of the
Garage namely Salauddin Mistry .
-4-
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and one Salauddin Mistry
under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code .
7. That, it is stated that after submission of charge-sheet , charges
were framed against the petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal
Code whereas against the accused Md. Salauddin Mistry under Section
406 of the Indian Penal Code and at the time of framing of the charge , the
petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .
8. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether seven
prosecution witnesses were examined by prosecution such as P.W.1 Bharat
Chaudhary ,Junior Engineer ,National High Way ,informant of the present
case , P.W.2 Sri C.K. Verma , P.W.3 Sri Nagendra Dutt Pandey , P.W.4
Sri Alok Kumar, P.W.5 Sri Shiv Parsan Prasad, P.W.6 Sri J.C. Bhandari
and P.W.7 Prof. Devendra Nath Thakur .

9. That, it is stated that apart from the oral evidences ,some
documentary evidences were also exhibited on behalf of the prosecution
such as Ext. 1 is written report of Bharat Chaudhary , Junior Engineer
(informant ) , Ext. 2 is written report of the petitioner dated 16.08.1988 ,
Ext. 3 is custody slip , Ext .4 is notice given to the petitioner by the
informant , Ext. 5 is letter no.265 dated 01.04.1989 issued from the office
of the National High Way addressed to the A.S.I. of Kazi
Mohammadpur Police – Station , Ext. 6 letter no.1450 dated 01.06.1985
-5-
addressed to the Superintending Engineer , National High Way
Circle ,Muzaffarpur and Ext. 7 letter of Superintending Engineer .
10. That, it is stated that out of seven prosecution
witnesses ,P.W.4 is a formal witness ,who proved the formal First
Information Report ,whereas the P.W.7 has been declared hostile and he has
denied his statement before the police that Government Staff was
carrying parts and machineries of the Truck in question.
11. That, in his evidence the P.W.1 admitted that the petitioner
himself gave copy of information to the Sub-Divisional Officer about the
missing of the Truck.
12. That, it is stated that in his Cross- Examination P.W.2
accepted that from the office of Divisional Office ,it appears that the
Truck was kept in the Garage of Md. Salauddin Mistry.

13. That, it is stated that P.W.3 in his cross-examination
admitted in his cross- examination that the Papers of the Truck was not
available in his office and he also admitted that the Truck in question was
kept in the Garage of Md. Salauddin Mistry since 1978 i.e. prior to filing of
10 years ago of the lodging of the instant case.
14. That, it is stated that it is admitted position from the
evidences of all the prosecution witnesses that the Truck in question was
not in working position and the same was kept in the open sky since last
10 years from the date of lodging of the First Information Report .
-6-
15. That, it is also admitted fact for last about 10 years, the
Officers of the Department were not interested to repair for the Truck in
question or auctioned the and when the petitioner himself informed about
the missing of the said Truck ,they woke up from deep slumber and
lodged the instant First Information Report against the petitioner .
16. That, it is stated that in the present case ,the prosecution has
failed to examine the independent witnesses rather all the witnesses are
the official witnesses .
17. That, it is stated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are
not trustworthy since they deposed their evidence only with a view to
save their skin from their own dereliction in duty because lapses on their
part the truck in question was kept in the Garage since last 10 years in
open sky .
18. That, it is stated that the prosecution has failed to examine the
Investigating Officer of the case, who is the most important witnesses to
establish the case.
19. That, it is stated that the prosecution case failed to establish
the case against the owner of the Garage ,in whose Garage the Truck in
question was kept and from where the Truck in question is missing.
20. That, it is true that the petitioner was deputed to watch the
Truck in question but it is humanely not possible for a single man to
-7-
watch out the truck in question in open sky same for long 10 years for 24
hours .
Magistrate , East Muzaffarpur , without taking into the consideration the
material available on record as well as the non- examination of
independent witnesses and Investigating Officer of the case , has been
pleased to convict the petitioner Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for three years vide
judgment and order dated 04.06.1999 .

by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Muzaffarpur East ,the
petitioner preferred a criminal appeal which was registered as Cr. Appeal
No.31 of 1999 and during the pendency of appeals, the petitioner was
released on bail .
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.IV
Muzaffarpur ,who also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners vide
judgment and order dated 26.02.2011 and affirmed the order passed by
-8-
the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , East Muzaffarpur without
applying his judicial mind.
Sri Bal Krishna Verma , the learned
Additional Sessions Judge -IV , Muzaffarpur in
Cr. Appeal no. 31 of 1999 as also the judgment
and order dated 04.06.2009 passed by the learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , East
Muzaffarpur in G.R. No.78 of 2009 ,Trial No.842
of 1999 arising out of Kazi Mohammadpur P.S.

GROUNDS:
contradiction in between the statement of the witnesses before the
-9-
Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
as well as evidences of the witnesses before the court .
failed to examine the most important witnesses such as Investigating
Officer of the case.
trustworthy .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that due to latches on the
part of the Officers of the Department ,the Truck in question was kept in the
Garage in the open sky since last 10 years for repairing of the Truck .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that on the basis of
information given by the petitioner regarding missing the truck in question
-10-
,the instant case was lodged against the petitioner and the owner of the
Garage .
failed to establish the case against the owner of the Garage regarding
misappropriation of the Truck in question ,therefore, there is no occasion
to establish the case against this petitioner .
IX. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that for a single man ,it
is not possible to watch the truck in question for last 10 years for 24
hours in the open sky .

X. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the department had
kept silent over the matter for 10 years the department had taken what
steps for repairing of the truck in question .
XI. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
XII. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
It is ,therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be
pleased to admit this application, issue notice to the opposite-
-11-
party ,call for the records of the learned court below and
judgment and order dated 26.02.2011 passed by Sri Bal
Krishna Verma , the learned Additional Sessions Judge -
IV , Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal no. 31 of 1999 as also the
judgment and order dated 04.06.2009 passed by the learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , East Muzaffarpur in
G.R. No.78 of 2009 ,Trial No.842 of 1999 arising out of Kazi
Mohammadpur P.S. Case No.09 of 1989.
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit
A ND
During the pendency of this application ,the petitioner be
enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,Muzaffarpur East in G.R.
No.78 of 2009 ,Trial No.842 of 1999 arising out of Kazi
Mohammadpur P.S. Case No.09 of 1989.
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.

AND
In the matter of :-
Shankar Sahani……………......……………..……PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
application.
directed against the order dated 19.05.2008 .

4. That, it is stated that the petitioner is a poor and illiterate
person and he is living outside the State for his livelihood as well as his
family members and at the time of passing of the impugned judgment and
order dated 19.05.2008, the petitioner was not present in his native village
and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. VI,
Sitamarhi did not inform about the impugned order dated 19.05.2008 .
5. That, it is stated that in the last week of November , 2010 ,
when the petitioners have got knowledge about the impugned order dated
30.08.2010 by which the criminal appeal filed by the petitioners were
disposed of with some modification in sentence awarded to the petitioners
by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sheohar at Sitamarhi
then the petitioners immediately surrendered before the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sheohar at Sitamarhi on 29.11.2010 and
since the petitioners are behind the bars .
-3-
6. That, it is stated that since the petitioners are very poor
persons ,therefore, in arranging the money to file the present criminal
taken some time.

of the petitioners contacted the counsel at Patna on 10.03.2011 for filing
the present criminal revision application and accordingly the instant
criminal revision application is being filed before this Hon'ble Court on
14.03.2011 .
8. That, there is no intentional latches on the part of the
petitioners to approach this Hon'ble court against the impugned order
and the delay has been caused in filing of the instant revision application
because of communication gap as well as paucity of money as mentioned
above .
condoned ,the petitioners would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
-4-
application .
AND/OR

CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2011.

2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Sunil Kumar Singh @ Pappu ,son of Sri Umesh Kumar Singh ,
Resident of village- Mayurwa , South Tola , P.S. Sonebarsa , District -
Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order dated 19th December , 2009 passed by Sri Sudhakar Singh ,the
learned Additional Sessions Judge ,F.T. C. –II, Sitamarhi in Criminal
Appeal No.90 of 2009 , whereby and where under the learned Additional
Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner for
his release and also confirmed the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi in Trial No.85/2009 arising out
of Sonebarsa P.S. Case No.43 of 2009 dated 22.05.2009 for the offence
Under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act by which the appellant was refused to be enlarge on bail by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi.
2. That, the petitioner had earlier moved before this Hon'ble
Court against the order dated 19.12.2009 vide Cr. Rev. No.1975 of 2009
which was rejected on 24.02.2010 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mandhata Singh
thereafter the petitioner again filed Cr. Rev. N.352 of 2011 which was also
rejected on 24.03.2011 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mandhata Singh and
except that the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High Court
any time earlier against the impugned order .
-3-
dated 24.02.2010 passed in Cr. Rev.
No.1975 of 2009 and order dated
24.03.2011 passed in Cr. Rev. No.352
marked as ANNEXURE- “1” &
“1/1” to this application.
Report in brief is that the informant gave his written report before the Station
Head Officer of Sonebarsa Police- Station , stating therein that on
22.05.2009 at about 10.30 A.M. he was sitting with his family member and
his sons namely Ashok Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh brought soil
on his Tractor to put up on the muddy road but in the mean time the accused
persons named in the First Information Report came there and protested and
claiming the said Road to be their own and son of the informant also
claiming it to be their own . It is further alleged that in the meantime
informant’s neighbour namely Braj Kishore Singh and his village namely
Upendra Singh came there . It is further alleged that when son of the
informant started putting soil on the Road at that time accused Manju Devi
brought D.B.B.L gun from her house and handed over to her husband and
order to kill him then accused Umesh Kumar Singh fired from his gun
which hit on the head of Ajay Kumar Singh as a result of which Ajay
-4-
Kumar Singh fell down on the earth and died . It is further alleged that
thereafter accused Sunil Kumar @ Pappu took the gun from the hand of his
father and loaded cartridge and fired the fun which hit on the chest of
Ashok Kumar Singh ,who is also died on spot. It is further alleged that
hearing the sound of firing villagers assembled there and caught Umesh
Kumar Singh and other accused entered into their house.
informant ,a First Information Report case was registered bearing
Sonebarsa P.S. Case No.43 of 2009 dated 22.05.2009 registered for the
offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
F.I.R. of Sonebarsa P.S. Case No.43
of 2009 dated 22.05.2009 is annexed
hereto and marked as
ANNEXURE-“2” to this application.
Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi being Trial No.85 of 2009 arising out of
Sonebarsa P.S. Case No.43 of 2009 dated 22.05.2009 , G.R. No.1417 of

2009 registered for the offences under Sections 302 /34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
-5-
police due to non-fulfillment of the illegal demand of the police.
7. That, from perusal of the First Information Report , it is
apparent that there is admitted land dispute between both the parties for
some piece of land .
8. That, the fact is that the informant is a powerful person of the
society and due to this reason he wanted to grab the land of the petitioner
and on the date of occurrence he forcibly putting soil on the land of the
petitioner and when the father of the petitioner protested the informant and
his son brutally assaulted the father of the petitioner any how the father of
the petitioner escaped from the hands of the informant and the father of the
petitioner entered into his house for saving his life . For such incidence ,the
father of the petitioner also lodged a First Information Report against the
informant . In the said incidence the father of the petitioner received
grievous injury and taking into seriousness of the father of the petitioner , he
was referred to Sadar Hospital , Sitamarhi.
F.I.R. of Sonebarsa P.S. Case No.44

of 2009 and injury report of the father
of the petitioner are annexed
-6-
ANNEXURE- “3” & “3/1” to this
application.
9. That, the fact is that the father of the petitioner has a licensee
gun holder and on the date of occurrence ,the informant and his son entered
into the house of the petitioner for snatching the gun of the father of the
petitioner but when the father of the petitioner protested the motive of the
informant and his son and on that time accidentally the bullet was fired
and hit on the sons of the informant .
10. That, it is stated that during the course of investigation ,it has
come that the father of the petitioner fired twice upon the both sons of the
informant which hit upon them and nothing had come in the police
investigation ,this petitioner had also fired from the gun .
the Court Juvenile Justice Board ,Sitamarhi ,wherein the learned Juvenile
Justice Board vide order dated 07.11.2009 declared the petitioner as a
juvenile .
Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi which was rejected by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 18.11.2009 .
-7-
Sitamarhi is annexed herewith and
application.
Appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi being Cr. Appeal
No.90 of 2009 ,which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge ,F.T.C. – II , Sitamarhi vide his order dated 19.12.2009.
petitioner.
22.05.2009 i.e. more than two years without any fault and the long
incarceration of the petitioner in the judicial custody is not in the interest of
a juvenile .
-8-
17. That, there is no sufficient/ satisfactory progress in trial
and ,therefore, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in future.
bail.
Court.
dated 19th December , 2009 passed by Sri
Sudhakar Singh ,the learned Additional
Sessions Judge ,F.T. C. –II, Sitamarhi in Criminal
Appeal No.90 of 2009 the above named petitioner
the other following
GROUNDS:
well as on facts.
-9-
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that there is admitted land
dispute between both the parties for a piece of land .
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that it has come during the
course of investigation that the father of the petitioner twice fired upon the
both sons of the informant which hit upon them and only the petitioner is
son of Umesh Kumar Singh ,the petitioner was falsely implicated in the
present case .
VII. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal ,the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the informant had falsely
-10-
implicated the entire family members of the petitioner for some oblique
purposes .
law .
aside the judgment and order dated 19 th
December , 2009 passed by Sri Sudhakar Singh ,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,F.T. C.
–II, Sitamarhi in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2009
and be further pleased to direct for release of the
petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the learned
Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi in connection
with Trial No.85 of 2009 , arising out of
Sonebarsa P.S. Case No.43 of 2009 , G.R.
No.1417 of 2009.
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
AND
In the matter of :-
1. Bhuneshwar Yadav, son of Late Hiya Lal Yadav,
2. Kanta Kumari @ Kanti Devi , wife of Bijay Yadav,
Both resident of village- Chharapatti , P.S. Dharhara
( Hemjapur O.P. ) ,District – Munger.
VERSUS
2. Rama Kant Yadav, son of Kamal Kishore Yadav,
Resident of village- Chharapatti , P.S. Dharhara ( Hemjapur O.P. )
,District – Munger.
…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
dated 28.01.2011 passed in Cr. Rev. No.59 of 2010 by learned Sri Pradip
Kumar Mallick ,the 1st Additional Sessions Judge , Munger arising out of
order dated 04.01.2010 passed in Dharhara P.S. Case No.13 of 2009 by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger ,whereby and where under
the learned Revisional Court was pleased to set aside the order passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger dated 04.01.2010 by
which the Final Form was accepted and proceeding against the petitioners
was dropped.
Court earlier against the impugned order dated 28.01.2011 .
3. That, the Opposite-party no.2 ,who is the informant of the
concerned case bearing Dharhara P.S. Case No.13 of2009 which was
lodged by him alleging therein that the informant ,who is the next door
neighbour of the petitioners gave his Fardbeyan stating therein that on
22.02.2009 ,the dispute with regard to the construction of the boundary wall
-3-
was going on six months prior to the occurrence and one panchayati has
been held and the matter was pacified .The accused Vijay Yadav started to
build a pucca roof 10 days prior and the iron rod was extended upon the
land of the informant and secondly the accused persons was protesting by
one Ram Sevak Yadav brother of the informant upon which all the
accused persons abused him and accused Vijay Yadav having taken pistol
from the hand of Prashant Yadav and one Shashi Yadav belonging to village
– Lagma came there with his riffle and accused Vijay Yadav shot firing
upon brother of the informant ,which hit near the nose of the deceased and
he died on the spot and according First Information Report was lodged.
copy of the F.I.R. of Dharhara P.S.
Case No.13 of 2009 is annexed
ANNEXURE- “1”to this application .
4. That, as per the First Information Report ,there is no any
overtact or any involvement has been attributed to these petitioners simply
the name of these petitioners have been mentioned in the First Information
Report . The petitioner no.1 is an old man aged about -63 years and the
petitioner no.2 is a Government employee as a teacher and she was
posted in the Middle School, Sair Hathia under Jhajha Block within the
-4-
District of Jamui and both the petitioners are quite innocent and they
have been falsely implicated in this case.
5. That, the factual aspect of this case, the son of the petitioner
no.1 namely Raja Yadav fell seriously ill and on 21.02.2009 the son of the
petitioner no.1 was carried to P.M.C.H. and they are badly engaged in the
treatment of Raja Yadav son of the petitioner no.1 and ultimately he died
during the course of treatment . In between this period some altercation
took place and the deceased came with an old country made pistol and he
tried to open fire but the sticker of the pistol could not be pressed and Ram
Sevak Yadav ( deceased ) repeatedly tried to fire forcefully then it became
fire which hit on the lowest part of the Nostril and Chin and he sustained
injury and he ultimately died by his own mistake . When the wife of the
petitioner no.1 came to know about the accusation of her entire family
member then she went to the concerned police-station to give information
in this regard with some villagers then the police came with the collusion
of Kamal Kishore Yadav , father of the deceased ,who is the official of the
Police Department and the concerned Police denied to receive information
of the wife of the petitioner no.1 and wife of the petitioner no.1 ultimately
instituted a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No.170C of 2009 on

26.02.2009 . In this way , the First Information Report lodged by the
informant is concocted one and it is a case of falsely implication due to
previous enmity because father of deceased is the employee of Police
-5-
Department and he planted in a false case.
complaint petition is annexed
6. That, the entire family members of the petitioners have been
made accused by deviating the mode of occurrence by the informant and
ultimately the informant wants to outrage the modesty of the petitioner no.2
by implicating in a false case . So far the petitioner no.1 is concerned , he
is an old and he is totally unable to move frequently .
7. That, the Investigating Officer has initially submitted charge-
sheet on 30.05.2009 bearing Charge –Sheet No.37 of 2009 against two
persons namely Vijay Yadav and Ajay Yadav , sons of the petitioner no.1
and after thorough investigation , the second charge-sheet was submitted
on 31.07.2009 bearing Charge-Sheet No.78 of 2009 by declaring the
petitioners innocent and having mentioned the accused Raja Yadav and
Niraj Yadav as dead and during the course of investigation ,the
informant Opposite-party no.2 has filed a protest petition on 16.03.2009
but in the protest petition itself ,there is no any words or allegations have
been leveled against these petitioners . Simply , the informant leveled the
charge of collusive activities against the police and the informant always
appeared through is private lawyer to protest r oppose in each and every
-6-
stage of the proceeding from lower court to High Court .
True photo stat as well as typed
copies of the Charge-sheet nos. 37 of
2009 and 78 of 2009 are annexed
ANNEXURE- “3” & “3A” to this
application.
8. That, in the criminal revision application bearing Cr. Rev.
no.59 of 2010 filed by the informant –Opposite-party no.2 did not mention
any specific averment that he has not been heard at the time of passing of the
order dated 04.01.2010 .Not even only in the order-sheet dated 04.01.2010 ,
it has been mentioned that the informant had already appeared by giving his
Hazari but at the revisional stage , it has been argued orally on behalf of the
informant that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not give
opportunity to hear him .
A true photo stat copy of the revision
application filed by the Opposite-
party no.2 is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE-“4” to this
application.
9. That, the independent witnesses as well as material witness
whose statement was recorded in the case-diary , in which it has come that
-7-
the petitioner no.1 was sitting in his door and the place of occurrence is
upon the roof of the house and some villagers were gossiping with the
petitioner no.1 , meanwhile a sound of firing was heard , meaning thereby
the petitioner no.1 was definitely not present at the place of occurrence
and accordingly the police has submitted final form against the petitioners .
Not even only in the supervision note itself both the petitioners are found
to be innocent because they were not present at the relevant time at the
place of occurrence .
10. That, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger has
rightly passed the order dated 04.01.2010 because the appearance of the
informant is apparent from perusal of the order dated 04.01.2010 hence
there is no need to issue notice to the informant when the informant
appeared suo-motto in each and every stage of the proceeding ,by engaging
a private lawyer and so far material available in the case-diary as well as
supervision note and revision application no consistent and material
evidence has come during the course of investigation .
A certified copy of the order dated
04.01.2010 passed by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger
-8-
11. That, thereafter the informant filed revision application
without any rhyme or reason and without any cogent grounds but the
learned lower revisional court has set aside the order dated 04.01.2010
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger by which the
proceeding against these petitioners was dropped by accepting the Final
Report submitted by the police.
12. That, the learned lower Revisional Court has failed to
consider the provision of Section -319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
in a Sessions Trial Case and pass the order impugned dated 28.01.2011
without considering the facts and circumstances of the case which is quite
illegal in the eye of law though in paragraph no.5 of the impugned order , it
has been observed by the learned lower revisional court but he overlooked
the appearance of the informant as mentioned in the order dated
04.01.2010.
13. That, in the protest petition ,the name of almost all witnesses
have been mentioned in the charge-sheet itself and there is specific
provisions under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ,so there
is no need to linger the procedure of the trial hence the learned lower
revisional court has erred in passing the impugned order.
dated 28.01.2011 passed by learned Sri Pradip
Kumar Mallik , the 1st Additional Sessions
-9-
Judge , Munger in Cr. Rev. No.59 of 2010 the
above named petitioners beg to prefer this
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order is bad in law as well as on
facts.
II. For that, the learned lower Revisional Court has failed to
consider the order dated 04.01.2010 with regard to appearance of the
informant mentioned in the order –sheet itself.
III. For that, the learned lower Revisional Court has also failed to
scrutinize the Section -319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is for
the informant in Sessions Trial Case to induce the evidence even if any
person not being person could be tried together .
IV. For that, the learned lower court should have meticulously
examined the decisions cited by the parties but he failed to do so and

passed the impugned order without considering the provisions mentioned
under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
V. For that, the learned lower revisional court should have
considered the entire evidence or material collected by the Investigating
Officer or submitted by the prosecution party but factually there is no
material against these petitioners and passed the order impugned without
-10-
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which is quite illegal
in the eye of law.
VI. For that, the order impugned is quite illegal , unwarranted and
the same is fit to be set aside.
parties ,call for the records of the learned court below and
order dated 28.01.2011 passed by learned Sri Pradip Kumar
Mallik , the 1st Additional Sessions Judge , Munger in Cr.
Rev. No.59 of 2010 and affirmed the order dated
04.01.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,
Munger in Dharhara P.S. Case No.13 of 2009.
AND/OR

A ND
During the pendency of this application ,the operation of the
impugned order dated 28.01.2011 and further proceeding of
the learned court below may kindly be stayed.
(PETITIONERS IN JAIL )
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
AND
In the matter of :-
1. Raj Mangal Paswan ,son of Nageshwar Paswan,
2. Ram Briksh Paswan , son of Late Sukeshwar Paswan ,
3. Ramnath Paswan , son of Kuldip Paswan ,
4. Chander Paswan , son of Hardeo Paswan ,
5. Raj Kumar Paswan , son of Ramji Paswan ,
6. Ram Julum Paswan , son of Late Sukeshwar Paswan ,

All resident of village- Bhoraha , Tola- Gaus Nagar , P.S.
Belsand ,District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
-2-
To,
and order dated 30.08.2010 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey , the
learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.6 , Sitamarhi
in Cr. Appeal no. 23 of 2008 / 14 of 2008 , whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to dispose of the
criminal appeal filed by the petitioners and confirmed the judgment and
order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Trial No.758 of 2008 arising out of
G.R. No.477 of 1991 / Belsand P.S. Case No.31 of 1991 with some partial
modification after reducing the period of sentence , by which the learned

Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to convict the
petitioners Under Sections 147,148, 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced the petitioner nos.1 and 2 to undergo R.I. for two years and
also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 148 of the Indian
Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one
-3-
month each, further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and also pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
S.I. for one month under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code . The
petitioner nos. 3,4,5 and 6 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year
each and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine
to undergo S.I. for 15 days each under Section 147 and 323 of the Indian
Penal Code ,they were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years
each and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 452 of the
Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I.
for one month each however all the sentences will run concurrently.
Information Report is that the brothers of the informant namely Rajendra
Paswan and Gajendra Paswan were returning after attending the call of
nature and when they reached near Maharani Asthan Paswan raised alarm
of “Gidar- Gidar” on which all the accused persons including the

petitioners having armed with variously deadly weapons came there and
they started to assault both of them with their respective weapons .It is
further alleged that on hearing alarm of Rajendra Paswan and Gajendra
Paswan , the informant Raj Kishore Paswan rushed to rescue them , the
accused persons including the petitioners started to assault him also with
-4-
Lathi and Farsa . It is further alleged that when the informant rushed
towards his house then accused persons including the petitioners also
chased him and entered into his house and assaulted the informant , his
mother , Bhabhi and father brutally . The cause behind the occurrence is
that prior to 15 days there had been some altercation taken place in between
the informant and the accused persons for passage ( Rasta ) for which a
Panchayati was held and due to that annoyance , the occurrence had been
taken place by the accused persons.
4. That, it is stated that on the basis of the aforesaid statement of
the informant , Belsand Police drew up a formal First Information Report
and registered a case being Belsand P.S. Case No. 31 of 1991 attributing
offences under Section 147,148,149,307 , 323, 324 and 452 of the Indian
Penal Code.

submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and others under the
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners and others under
Sections 147,148,149,307 , 323, 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.
-5-
was committed to the court of Sessions and the case was transferred the
court of learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi for trial but the
learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge sent the case to the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi Under Section 228 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure since the offence under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code was not prima-facie made out against the accused persons.
against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 147, 323 and 452 of the
Indian Penal Code whereas the charges were framed against the petitioner
no.1 under Sections 148,324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi vide order dated 12.08.1994
and after framing the charges , the case was transferred for trial and
disposal to the court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,

Sheohar at Sitamarhi and at the time of framing of the charge , the
petitioner and others pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .
prosecution witnesses were examined by prosecution such as P.W.1 Sajjan
Paswan , P.W.2 Shatrughan Paswan , P.W.3 Rajendra Paswan , P.W.4
Mautunia Devi and P.W.5 Gajendra Paswan.
11. That, it is stated that one witness P.W.1 namely Sajjan Paswan
was declared hostile.
-6-
12. That, it is stated that in the present case , the prosecution has
failed to examine the important witness namely informant ,Investigating
Officer of the case and Doctor who examined the injured ,whose evidence is
very necessary to come to the conclusion of the case.
13. That, it is stated that in his deposition P.W2 said that he
along with P.W.1 went to rescue them but the P.W.1 in his evidence said
that he has got no knowledge about the occurrence which falsifies the
evidence of the P.W.2 itself.
14. That, it is stated that during the course of trial , the injury
received by the injured were not exhibited by the prosecution as also the
doctor was not examined by the prosecution version ,therefore, the so-
called injury report was not a valid evidence of proof.
interested witness and ,therefore, their evidence is not the trustworthy .

16. That, it is stated that in the present case the Investigating
Officer was also not examined by the prosecution , whose evidence is
essential to coming into the conclusion of the case.
contradiction to each other and they also deposed contradictory to the
statement given by them before the Investigating Officer under Section 161
-7-
Magistrate , Sheohar , without taking into the consideration the material
available on record as well as the prosecution failed to produce the
independent witnesses and also there is serious contradiction in between the
deposition of each other , convicted the Under Sections 147,148, 323 and
452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioner no.1 to
undergo R.I. for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code , further sentenced to undergo R.I.
for two years and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 452 of the
Indian Penal Code . The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo
R.I. for one year each and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and under
Section 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code ,they were further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and also to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- each under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code however all
the sentences will run concurrently.
by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sheohar ,the petitioners
-8-
2008 /14 of 2008 and during the pendency of appeals, the petitioners were
released on bail .
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.6
Sitamarhi ,who also disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioners vide
the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sheohar at Sitamarhi
vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 with some partial modification
after reducing the period of sentence without applying his judicial mind.
petitioners had gone to outside the State for earning their livelihood and the
appeal was taken up for such a long time and ultimately the appeal was
the petitioners in the appeal did not inform the petitioners about the
dismissal of appeal and when the petitioners have come their native
village , they have got knowledge of the dismissal of appeal then they
surrendered before the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,
Sheohar at Sitamarhi on 29.11.2010
surrender slip is annexed herewith and
-9-
application.
Sri Arbind Kumar Pandey , the learned
No.6 , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 23 of 2008 /14
of 2008 as also the judgment and order dated
28.03.2008 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate , Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Trial
No.758 of 2008 arising out of G.R. No.477 of

1991, the above named petitioners beg to prefer
following
GROUNDS:
-10-
failed to examine the most important witnesses such as informant ,
Investigating Officer of the case as well as the doctor who examined the
injured .
trustworthy .
evidence said that he along with P.W.1 went to rescue them but the P.W.1
in his evidence said that he has got no knowledge about the occurrence.
-11-
justice.

passed by Sri Arbind Kumar Pandey , the learned
1991.
AND/OR
-12-
A ND
of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate
, Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Trial No.758 of 2008

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
AND
In the matter of :-
1. Ram Swaroop Paswan , son of Late Bhukhlu Paswan ,
2. Chandeshwar Paswan , son of Rameshwar Paswan ,
3. Ram Nandan Paswan , son of Hardeo Paswan ,
All resident of village- Bhoraha , Tola- Gaus Nagar , P.S.
Belsand ,District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order dated 30.08.2010 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey , the
learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.6 , Sitamarhi
in Cr. Appeal no. 25 of 2008 / 13 of 2008 , whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to dispose of the
criminal appeal filed by the petitioners and confirmed the judgment and
order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Trial No.758 of 2008 arising out of
G.R. No.477 of 1991 / Belsand P.S. Case No.31 of 1991 with some partial
modification after reducing the period of sentence , by which the learned
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to convict the
petitioners Under Sections 147,148, 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced the petitioner no.1 to undergo R.I. for two years and also to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and
in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one month , further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one month
under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioner nos. 2 and 3
-3-
were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each and also to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 15 days
each under Section 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code ,they were
further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and also to pay fine
of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one month each
however all the sentences will run concurrently.

Information Report is that the brothers of the informant namely Rajendra
Paswan and Gajendra Paswan were returning after attending the call of
nature and when they reached near Maharani Asthan Paswan raised alarm
of “Gidar- Gidar” on which all the accused persons including the
petitioners having armed with variously deadly weapons came there and
they started to assault both of them with their respective weapons .It is
further alleged that on hearing alarm of Rajendra Paswan and Gajendra
Paswan , the informant Raj Kishore Paswan rushed to rescue them , the
accused persons including the petitioners started to assault him also with
Lathi and Farsa . It is further alleged that when the informant rushed
towards his house then accused persons including the petitioners also
chased him and entered into his house and assaulted the informant , his
-4-
mother , Bhabhi and father brutally . The cause behind the occurrence is
that prior to 15 days there had been some altercation taken place in between
the informant and the accused persons for passage ( Rasta ) for which a
Panchayati was held and due to that annoyance , the occurrence had been
taken place by the accused persons.
4. That, it is stated that on the basis of the aforesaid statement of
the informant , Belsand Police drew up a formal First Information Report

and registered a case being Belsand P.S. Case No. 31 of 1991 attributing
offences under Section 147,148,149,307 , 323, 324 and 452 of the Indian
Penal Code.
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and others under the
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners and others under
Sections 147,148,149,307 , 323, 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.
was committed to the court of Sessions and the case was transferred the
court of learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi for trial but the
learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge sent the case to the court of learned
-5-
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi Under Section 228 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure since the offence under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code was not prima-facie made out against the accused persons.
against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 147, 323 and 452 of the
Indian Penal Code whereas the charges were framed against the petitioner
no.1 under Sections 148,324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi vide order dated 12.08.1994
and after framing the charges , the case was transferred for trial and
disposal to the court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,
Sheohar at Sitamarhi and at the time of framing of the charge , the
petitioner and others pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .
prosecution witnesses were examined by prosecution such as P.W.1 Sajjan
Paswan , P.W.2 Shatrughan Paswan , P.W.3 Rajendra Paswan , P.W.4
Mautunia Devi and P.W.5 Gajendra Paswan.
11. That, it is stated that one witness P.W.1 namely Sajjan Paswan
was declared hostile.
12. That, it is stated that in the present case , the prosecution has
failed to examine the important witness namely informant ,Investigating
Officer of the case and Doctor who examined the injured ,whose evidence is
very necessary to come to the conclusion of the case.
-6-
13. That, it is stated that in his deposition P.W2 said that he
along with P.W.1 went to rescue them but the P.W.1 in his evidence said
that he has got no knowledge about the occurrence which falsifies the
evidence of the P.W.2 itself.
14. That, it is stated that during the course of trial , the injury
received by the injured were not exhibited by the prosecution as also the
doctor was not examined by the prosecution version ,therefore, the so-
called injury report was not a valid evidence of proof.
interested witness and ,therefore, their evidence is not the trustworthy .
16. That, it is stated that in the present case the Investigating
Officer was also not examined by the prosecution , whose evidence is
essential to coming into the conclusion of the case.
Magistrate , Sheohar , without taking into the consideration the material
available on record as well as the prosecution failed to produce the
deposition of each other , convicted the Under Sections 147,148, 323 and
-7-
452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioner no.1 to
undergo R.I. for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code , further sentenced to undergo R.I.
for two years and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 452 of the
Indian Penal Code . The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo
R.I. for one year each and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and under
Section 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code ,they were further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and also to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- each under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code however all
the sentences will run concurrently.
by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sheohar ,the petitioners
2008 /13 of 2008 and during the pendency of appeals, the petitioners were
released on bail .
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.6
-8-
Sitamarhi ,who also disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioners vide
the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sheohar at Sitamarhi
vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 with some partial modification
after reducing the period of sentence without applying his judicial mind.
petitioners had gone to outside the State for earning their livelihood and the
the petitioners in the appeal did not inform the petitioners about the
dismissal of appeal and when the petitioners have come their native
village , they have got knowledge of the dismissal of appeal then they
surrendered before the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,
Sheohar at Sitamarhi on 06.12.2010.
application.
-9-
Sri Arbind Kumar Pandey , the learned

1991, the above named petitioners beg to prefer
following
GROUNDS:
-10-
failed to examine the most important witnesses such as informant ,
Investigating Officer of the case as well as the doctor who examined the
injured .
trustworthy .
evidence said that he along with P.W.1 went to rescue them but the P.W.1
in his evidence said that he has got no knowledge about the occurrence.
-11-
justice.

passed by Sri Arbind Kumar Pandey , the learned
1991.
AND/OR
-12-
A ND

of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate
, Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Trial No.758 of 2008

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2011.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Ashish Kumar Singh @ Tinku , son of Anirudh Kumar Singh ,
Resident of village- Andah , P.S. Pandaul ,District - Madhubani.
VERSUS
2. Mamta Kumari , wife of Ashish Kumar Singh @ Tinku ,
Daughter of Jang Bahadur Singh , resident of Mohalla- Sharda
Nagar, Ward No.27, Saharsa, P.S. Saharsa , District – Saharsa.
To,
-2-

and order dated 06.12.2010 passed by Sri Dharam Netajee , the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Misc. Case No.63 of 2010 ,
whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to
direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Opposite-party no.2
by way of maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance case . The
petitioner has been further directed to make payment of arrears of
maintenance in three equal installments within three months .
that the Opposite-party no.2 was married with the petitioner as per Hindu
Rites and custom on 03.06.2009 . Offerings were also given at the time of
marriage by her parents as per their capacity . The Opposite-party no.2
further alleged that she went to her Sasural , where she lived in good
condition for 10-15 days and thereafter the petitioner and his other
family members started to demand further Rs.1 Lacs for doing business
for which the Opposite-party no.2 informed her parents and the parents of
-3-
the Opposite-party no.2 any how managed Rs.25,000/- and the same was
given to the petitioner even then the petitioner and his other family
members did not satisfy from the same then she subjected to cruelty and
torture and lastly on 01.09.2009 ,the Opposite-party was ousted from the
house after assaulting her for which a criminal case was also lodged by
the Opposite-party no.2 before the Court. It is further alleged that the
parent of the Opposite-party no.2 also expending money for study of the
Opposite-party no.2 worth Rs.2,000/- per month . The Opposite-party no.2
further alleged that the petitioner is a practicing Homeopathic Doctor
and earning Rs.15,000/- per month . She further alleged that the petitioner
is only one son of his parents and about 15 Bighas of land to the father of
the petitioner from which agricultural income comes Rs.1,50,000/- per
annum. It is further alleged that the mother of the petitioner is a
Government Teacher and the father of the petitioner is also a
Homeopathic Doctor.
Judge, Family Court, Saharsa was registered as Misc. Case No.63 of
2010.
of Misc. Case No.63 of 2010 is
-4-
5. That, it is pertinent to mention here that just after the
marriage ,the Opposite-party no.2 had gone to her parental house from the
house of the petitioner but thereafter she did not return even after the best
efforts of the petitioner .
6. That, it is stated that when the Opposite-party no.2 did not turn
up to return her matrimonial house then the petitioner filed a case in the
court of learned Principal Judge , Family Court, Madhubani on
20.03.2010 for restitution of their conjugal rights .
Matrimonial case filed by the
petitioner on 20.03.2010 is annexed
7. That, it is stated that after getting the knowledge of the
aforesaid matrimonial case filed by the petitioner , the Opposite-party
no.2 filed the present miscellaneous case for maintenance on 13.04.2010.
8. That, it is stated that not even only the present case, the
Opposite-party no.2 also filed a complaint case in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Saharsa on 05.04.2010 against the petitioner
and other family members under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
-5-
and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was registered as
Complaint Case No. 500 of 2010 .
complaint case no.500 of 2010 is

9. That, it is stated that on solemn affirmation in the complaint
case, the Opposite-party no.2 herself admitted on the court question that her
husband is unemployed and father-in-law has been dismissed from the
service.
10. That, the fact is that the Opposite-party no.2 herself did not
ready to live with the petitioner even after the best efforts of the petitioner
rather the petitioner ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 with full dignity
and surety .
11. That, it is stated that petitioner himself a student of IIIrd Part
of Pre-Law and the petitioner himself is the fully dependent upon his
parents.
A true photo stat copy of the Identity
Card is annexed herewith and marked
application.
-6-
12. That, it is stated that in the complaint case filed by the
Opposite-party no.2 , a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued by the

learned court below in which the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail
before this Hon'ble Court which is pending for consideration.
13. That, it is stated that since against the petitioner , non-bailable
warrant of arrest was issued ,therefore, the petitioner filed an application
before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa through the
Advocate on 04.11.2010 for grant of time for appearance of the petitioner
in the court after granting bail by this Hon'ble Court.
this application.
14. That, it is stated that in fact the father of the petitioner had
only three acres of land including unfertile land but the Opposite-party no.2
wrongly mentioned 15 Bighas of Land.
15. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 failed to produce
any supporting documents in support of the case filed by her regarding
income of the petitioner as well as the landed property .
-7-
16. That, in fact the Opposite-party no.2 herself deserted the life of
the petitioner and she did not ready to live with the petitioner even after the
best efforts made by him .
passed the ex-parte impugned judgment and order dated
06.12.2010 ,whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has been
pleased to direct the petitioner for payment of maintenance to the Opposite-
party no.2 at the rate of 5000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure . The learned Principal Judge has also been pleased to
direct the petitioner to make payment of arrears of maintenance within
three months in three equal installments.
Sri Dharam Netajee , the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Saharsa in Misc. Case No.63 of
2010 ,the above named petitioner begs to prefer
following
GROUNDS:
-8-
Opposite-party no.2 is herself not ready to live with the petitioner since the
petitioner himself filed a matrimonial case for restitution of their conjugal
rights in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court ,
Madhubani ,therefore, the Opposite-party no.2 is not entitled to get any
maintenance or interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure .
VI. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party herself admitted

-9-
in the complaint case on solemn affirmation upon the court question that the
petitioner is an unemployed and his father is also dismissed from the
service .
VII. For that, while fixing the maintenance , the learned Principal
Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner is himself a student of 3 rd Part
Pre- Law and he is fully dependant on his parents .
VIII. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal
Judge without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
though the petitioner had already filed a petition through the Advocate
about the reasoning of non-presence in the court .
IX. For that, the maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge
X. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law .
passed by Sri Dharam Netajee , the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Misc.
Case No.63 of 2010 .

-10-
AND/OR
AND
2010 may kindly be stayed.

I.A. ( Crl.) NO.________________________/ OF 2011. ( Limitation )
IN
CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2011.
Section -5 of Limitation Act ;
AND
In the matter of :-
1.Surendra Singh @ Surendra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Ram Swaroop
Singh , resident of village- Akilpur , P.S. Sonepur ,District – Saran at
Chapra.
2. Manoj Singh ,son of Surendra Singh ,
resident of village- Akilpur , P.S. Sonepur ,District – Saran at Chapra.
…………………………... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
2. Chandrama Singh ,son of Late Vyas Singh ,
3. Bashistha Singh, son of Banaras Singh,
4. Dilip Singh ,son of Jayanandan Singh,
-2-
All resident of village- Akilpur , P.S. Sonepur ,District – Saran
at Chapra.
……………OPPOSITE –PARTIES.
To,
behalf of the petitioners above named;
1. That, this application is being filed with a prayer for condoning
the delay in filing the present criminal revision application arising out of
order dated 26th July , 2010 in Sessions Trial No.206 of 2010 passed by
learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge , Saran at Chapra arising out of
Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008 dated 31.05.2008 registered for the
offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27
of the Arms Act, whereby and where under the petitioners have not been
discharged from the charges .
2. That, the impugned order was passed on 26.07.2010 but
petitioners were engaged in the treatment of their mother and grand
mother respectively ,who was admitted at All India Institute of Medical
-3-
Sciences , New Delhi as such they were at New Delhi for treatment of
their mother and grand mother respectively .
3. That, the petitioners when they were at New Delhi in the
meantime the mother of the petitioner no.1 was passed away during her
treatment in the month of September, 2010.
4. That, the petitioner no.1 after the Sharadh ceremony was on
bed due to suffering from Jaundice .
5. That, when the petitioner no.1 became free from illness then
petitioner no.1 approached his counsel on 05.01.2011 for filing of the
revision .
6. That, the counsel for the petitioners examined the entire
records of the case and finally drafted then filed on .01.2011.
7. That, the order was passed in Sessions Trial No.206 of 2010
on 26.07.2010 and the petitioners should be filed on or before 27.10.2010.
8. That, the revision should be filed after deduction of
consumed period on 27.10.2010 but it has been going to be filed .
Altogether delay is 84 days approx after deduction of the period given in
the Act i.e. 90 days.
9. That, it is humbly and respectfully submitted that there is no
deliberate and intentional delay on the part of the petitioners to file this
criminal revision within the limitation period.
-4-
10. That, in view of the facts mentioned above , it would be
appropriate to condone the delay in filing the present petition.
11. That, the petitioners have not filed any other interlocutory
application for condonation of delay in filing of the present memo of
criminal revision
Lordships may graciously be pleased to allow this
application and accordingly be pleased to
condone the delay in filing of the present memo of
criminal revision .
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. No._________________/OF 2011.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
1.Surendra Singh @ Surendra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Ram Swaroop
Singh , resident of village- Akilpur , P.S. Sonepur ,District – Saran at
Chapra.
2. Manoj Singh ,son of Surendra Singh ,
resident of village- Akilpur , P.S. Sonepur ,District – Saran at Chapra.
…………………………... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
-2-
at Chapra.
To,
The humble petition on behalf of the
petitioners above named;
1. That, the present petition of revision is directed against the
order dated 26th July , 2010 in Sessions Trial No.206 of 2010 passed by
offences Under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27
of the Arms Act ,whereby and where under the petitioners have not been
discharged from the charges.
2. That, the petitioners have not moved before this Hon'ble Court
earlier at any stage against the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the learned
3rd Additional Sessions Judge , Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No.206
of 2010.
-3-
3. That, the prosecution case ,in short , as disclosed in the
Fardbeyan of one Chandrama Singh which was recorded by one Sub-
Inspector on 30.05.2008 at Sadar Hospital ,Hajipur ,alleging interalia as
follows :-
(i) That, at around 9.00 Clock on 30.05.2008 , the informant was
in his farm situated towards the west of the road at Akilpur
Mauza . The brother of the informant namely Shiv Prasad
Singh @ Shivji Singh was returning to his home and the
moment he reached near Vishwakarma Temple he was
surrounded by nine named accused persons armed with
weapons including the petitioner .
(ii) It is alleged that the brother of the informant cried that he
would be killed and thereafter the informant ran towards
him ,there he witnessed that all named accused persons had
apprehended his brother . Accused Surendra Singh directed to
all Shivji Singh and on this Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Pappu
Singh fired shot ,hitting his brother and thereafter the brother
of the informant fell down.
(iii) It is further alleged that all named accused persons threatened
the informant to flee away but the informant started crying and
thereafter Bashishtha Singh and Dilip Singh as well as other
-4-
persons came there running and then the named accused
persons fled away.
(iv) It is further stated that the informant carried his brother t the
Hajipur Hospital after loading him in a vehicle and there he was
declared dead.
(v) It is further claimed that the named accused persons killed the
brother of the informant . The reason for the incident is said to
be the farming of water melon by the Bataidar of the informant
as accused persons demanded extortion money and forcibly
occupied the same . A First Information Report bearing
Sonepur P.S. CaseNo.33 of 2007 was instituted for the same
wherein the case is going on against four named accused
persons. The accused persons are allegedly applying pressure
on the Bataidar to withdraw and compromise the case.
(vi) It is also alleged that a case is also going on against Rajdeo
Sharma @ Raja and Satish Sharma and the deceased was
taking carte of the case and for the aforesaid reason , the
accused persons have committed this offence.
informant , a First Information Report was drawn up on 31.05.2008 and
registered as Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008 under Section 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section -27 of the Arms Act.
-5-
A true /photo stat copy of the F.I.R.
of Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008
is annexed hereto and marked as
5. That, petitioners are quite innocent and have been falsely
implicated in this case due to previous enmity and dirty village politics.
6. That, the whole First Information Report is nothing but bundle
of lies , concocted and false.
7. That, previously one false case i.e. Sonepur P.S. CaseNo.33 of
2007 was filed by the informant side ( Sunil Kumar son of Chandradeo Rai ,
resident of village – Manua , District – Vaishali) under Sections 384/506/34
In this case a dispute was prevailing between the parties
over a land . The informant Sunil Kumar is the Bataidar of the informant of
Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008.
8. That ,it is pertinent to mention here that a proceeding under
Section -144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated with respect
to same land by the informant and the same was dropped vide order dated
19.06.2007 , passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate , Sonepur ,Saran.
9. That, further the informant filed a criminal revision vide
Criminal Revision No.288 of 2007 against the order dated 19.06.2007
before learned Sessions Judge ,Saran which was dismissed on 13.08.2007.
-6-
10. That, it is also relevant to mention here that all the
independent witnesses have clearly stated that the whole First
Information Report is false.
11. That, further it is also relevant to mention here that after
hearing all the parties ,petitioners ,informant and learned Public
Prosecutor , learned Sessions Judge , Saran at Chapra has observed and
clearly stated in the order that “ admittedly the land belongs to these
petitioners and there was a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and other cases which are connected with
these case were decided in favour of the petitioners”.
12. That, it has become crystal clear from the above stated
paragraphs that the informant of Sonepur P.S. Case No.33 of 2007 is a
guided Missile in the hands of the informant of Sonepur P.S. Case No.129
of 2008 . It has also become crystal clear that the whole First Information
Report is nothing but a bundle of lies.
13. That, the most remarkable matter in this regard is that the
falsity of the case , filed by the informant Sunil Kumar ( Bataidars of the
informant Chandrama Singh of the Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008 )
reveals the intention and the mental world and dase- devilness of creating
and lodging the false case.
14. That, the deceased namely Shivji Singh was a man of
criminal antecedent and several criminal cases of serious nature such as
-7-
murder , attempt to murder etc. are pending against him and his family
members . It is relevant to refer here some of the cases instituted against
him and is family members e.g. Sonepur P.S. Case No. 146/1992 ,
Sonepur P.S. Case No. 34/2000 ,Dariyapur P.S. Case No.103/2007 and
Dariyapur P.S. Case No.71 of 2008 etc. in view of the aforesaid fact this
possibility cannot be ruled out that persons inimical to him might have
killed the deceased . It is quite pertinent to state here in this context that
the sons of the deceased namely Nawal Singh and Dilip Singh came to
know any how that their father namely Shivji Singh has been killed by one
Shankar Singh of Fatehpur ( Raghopur ) of the Vaishali District
and ,therefore, just few days after the death of their father they forcibly
took out the said Shankar Singh while traveling in a Tempo and killed
him by sharp edged weapon and threw his dead body in the rider . The
aforesaid occurrence was also reported in the News Paper .
A true /photo stat copy of the News
Paper is annexed hereto and marked
as ANNEXURE- “2” to this petition.
15. That, it is also relevant to mention here that the occurrence
took place on 30.05.2008 and on 31.05.2008 in the daily News Paper “
Hindustan” it was published that two unknown persons riding on
Motorcycle have committed this offence. This is the real fact of the
occurrence which has become clear later on when the two sons of the
-8-
deceased killed one Sikandar Singh by sharp weapons and threw his
dead body in the rider . The said Shankar Singh is not an accused in the
First Information Report ,who is in fact the real and main accused . This
also indicates that the First Information Report is nothing but a bundle of
lies.
16. That, one aspect which has paramount importance in
revealing the falsity of the case is that one Indal Singh @ Indra Mohan
Singh ,who has also been made an accused in this case whereas in fact he
was not present even in the Vaishali District on that day. He was at
Samastipur to participate in physical efficiency test conducted by East
Central Railway ( Recruitment Cell ) on 30.05.2008 , the reporting time
was 8.00A.M. He had participated and qualified . This reality reveals the
fact that the First Information Report is absolutely false.
A true /photo stat copy of the call
letter is annexed hereto and marked as
ANNEXURE- “3” to this petition,
17. That, even the full brother of Indal Singh has also been made
an accused in this case which also indicates the falsity of the case . For
sake of justice the old aged mother namely Deopari Devi had given a
written application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police , Tirhut
Range , Muzaffarpur to save the life of her both sons ,who are absolutely
innocent.
-9-
A true /photo stat copy of the
application is annexed hereto and
application .
18. That, it is also pertinent to mention here that considering the
genuine demand and appearing false implication at first glance of the
First Information Report ,Deputy Inspector General of Police , Tirhut
Range , Muzaffarpur wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police ,Saran at
Chapra through vide letterno.1977 dated 08.12.2008 in which he has
clearly stated that examine and inquire this matter in Videography and
submit the report.
A true /photo stat copy of the letter
no.1977 dated 08.12.2008 is annexed
hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-
“5” to this application.
19. That, it is also important to mention here that almost all
accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court
except Rakesh Singh ,who has been made he main accused and one or
two persons .
20. That, as per the falsity of the case in the context of petitioner
Surendra Singh and his son is that he is a Headmaster of School and he
was busy the entire day with Block Education Extension Officer on
-10-
30.05.2008 .It has been clearly stated by the Block Education Extension
Officer that Surendra Singh was with him for the entire day . Except this
there are more evidences to support this fact that Surendra Singh had
come to the school and left the school. Observing this reality this Hon'ble
Court granted bail to Surendra Singh.
A true /photo stat copy of the bail
order of Hon'ble Court is annexed
21. That, it is stated clearly before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge ,Saran at Chapra that petitioner no.1 was busy the entire
day with the Block Education Extension Officer ,who came to investigate
the school .It is also stated that a number of paragraphs of the case-diary
in which the witnesses have stated that petitioner no.1 was on his duty and
Manoj Kumar petitioner no.2 was at his Sasural at village – Dabha within
District of Samastipur . Manoj Kumar Singh is working as L.I.C. Agent
at Samastipur.
22. That, the petitioners are men of clean antecedent .
23. That, it has become crystal clear from the above stated
paragraphs that the whole First Information Report is nothing but a bundle
of lies and the petitioners are quite innocent .The have been made an
escape goat in this case only due to the previous enmity and dirty village
-11-
politics.
24. That, in view of the matter, the impugned order is fit to be set
aside.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with the impugned order of not discharging dated
26.07.2010 passed by learned 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge , Saran at Chapra in Sessions
Trial No.206 of 2010 , the above named
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned trial court wrongly passed the order
without applying the reasonable mind and without going in its totality.
III. For that, the learned trial court has committed serious
illegality in rejecting the prayer of discharging the petitioners from a false
case.
IV. For that, the learned trial court could not bother to go in depth
to analyze the case in its totality for sake of justice.
V. For that ,learned trial court did not appreciate the fact that
Surendra Singh was busy entire day with Block Education Extension
Officer which have been corroborated by the other independent witnesses
-12-
also on the case-diary .
VI. For that, the learned trial court did not appreciate the glaring
contradictions which make the case absolutely false.
VII. For that, the learned trial court committed serious illegality in
rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioners in spite of knowing the
reason to implicate the petitioners in this case falsely .
VIII. For that, it appears that learned trial court has performed its
work as if it is stereo typed procedure work.
IX. For that, in any view of the matter, the impugned order of not
discharging has been arrived at by overlooking the material evidence on the
record and also by wrong appreciating of considering the contradictory
statements ,being manifest error on the point of law resulting to
flagrant ,miscarriage of justice .Thus , the impugned order is unsustainable
in the eye of law and fit to be set aside.
pleased to set
aside the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by
learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge , Saran at
Chapra in Sessions Trial No.206 of 2010.

-13-
AND/OR
AND
and further proceeding in Sessions Trial No.206
of 2010 pending in the court of learned 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge , Saran at Chapra may
kindly be stayed.

(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Anita Devi, son of Ram Bali Mandal,
Resident of village- Kumhara Bishunpur Mandal Tola , P.S. Dumra ,
VERSUS
The State of Bihar.….………………….……OPPOSITE -PARTY.

To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit, the Hon’ble Chief
-2-
dated 18.09.2010 passed by Sri Jagannath Rai , the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal
No.61 of 2010/ Sessions Trial No.03 of 2010 whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the appeal
filed by the petitioner and confirm the order dated 03.07.2010 passed by
the learned Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi in Gr. No.588 of 2009 ,Trial
No.492 of 2010 arising out of Dumra P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 by which the
learned Juvenile Justice Board has been pleased to declare the son of the
petitioner namely Sunil Kumar as major ( not juvenile ) at the time of
alleged occurrence i.e. 15.02.2009.

3. That, the informant namely Umesh Sah filed a written report
before the Station Head Officer of Dumra Police- Station on 20.02.2009 ,
alleging therein that his son Navin Kumar was residing in the house of his
grand father ( Nana ) since childhood for the purposes of reading . The
informant further alleged that on 15.02.2009 at about 11 P.M. one Sunil
-3-
Kumar Mandal called his son by telephone for seeing the movie and on his
call , his son had gone with Sunil Mandal but his son did not return to house
till 20.02.2009 . The informant suspected that his son might be kidnapped
by Sunil Mandal for the purposes of ransom.
Dumra Police drew up a formal First Information Report and registered a
case being Dumra P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 dated 20.02.2009 registered for
the offences under Section 364 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and further
added Section 302,201 of the Indian Penal Code.
F.I.R. of Dumra P.S. Case No.65 of
application.
5. That, it is stated that the son of the petitioner is innocent and
has committed no offence as alleged in the First Information Report rather
the son of the informant was implicated in the present case due to enmity.
Report the police arrested the son of the petitioner and remanded to the
judicial custody.
7. That, it is stated that after the arrest of the son of the
petitioner , the petitioner filed an application before the learned Chief
Judicial
-4-
Magistrate , Sitamarhi for separating the trial of the son of the petitioner
and send the case to the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board ,
Sitamarhi ,since on the date of alleged occurrence , the son of the petitioner
was juvenile i.e. below 18 years.
8. That, it is stated that thereafter the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate , Sitamarhi separated the trial of son of the petitioner and the
case was sent to the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi for
assessment of age of son of the petitioner .
9. That, it is stated that in support of the age of son of the
petitioner , three witnesses namely Anita Devi (petitioner herself ), Gauri
Nandan Singh Headmaster of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash High School ,
Dumra in which the son of the petitioner was schooling and Arun Mandal
teacher of Middle School , Basudeopur Boha , District – Sitamarhi , were

produced before the learned Juvenile Justice Board and all of them deposed
that the son of the petitioner was born on 13.02.1993 and on the date of
alleged occurrence he was below 18 years.
True photo stat/typed copies of the
application.
-5-
10. That, in support of age of the son of the petitioner documentary
evidences were produced before the learned Juvenile Justice Board such as
Admit Card of Matriculation granted by the Bihar School Examination
Board , School Leaving Certificate granted by the Headmaster of Middle
School, Basudeopur , Boha, the Admission Register of Middle School ,
Basudeopur etc. etc. in which the age of son of the petitioner namely Sunil
Kumar was mentioned as 13.02.1993.
True photo stat copies of Admit Card
of Matriculation and School Leaving
Certificate are annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE- “3” &
“3/1” to this application.

11. That, it is stated that P.W.1 namely Anita Devi ,in her statement
deposed that the age of her son namely Sunil Kumar is aged about 15-16
years and in support of the age of her son she produced the Admit Card
granted by the Bihar School Examination Board in which the date of Birth
of Sunil Kumar is mentioned as 13.02.1993.
12. That ,it is stated that P.W.2 namely Gauri Nandan Singh in his
evidence deposed that Sunil Kumar is the student of School Lok Nayak Jai
Prakash High School , Dumra and he also took admission of Sunil Kumar
in the school on the basis of transfer certificate granted by Middle School,
-6-
Basudeopur , Boha in which the date of birth of Sunil Kumar has been
mentioned as 13.02.1993.
13. That, it is stated that P.W.3 Arun Mandal came in the court
with the Admission Register and in his evidence deposed that the age of
Sunil Kumar recorded in the Register is 13.02.1993 and he also deposed
that Sunil Kumar admitted in his school on 09.08.1999.
The petitioner craves indulgence to
produce the Admission Register of
Middle School, Basudeopur at the
time of argument of the case, if
required.
14. That, it is stated that the learned Juvenile Justice Board
disbelieved that the son of the petitioner namely Sunil Kumar was reading
in Lok Nayak Jai Prakash High School, Dumra only on the ground that in
the Admit Card issued by the Bihar School Examination Board shows that
the son of the petitioner filled up his examination form through High
School , Bela Shanti Kutir.
15. That, in this regard it is pertinent to mention here that Lok
Nayak Jai Prakash High School ,Dumra is a private institution and for the
purposes of filling up the examination form Lok Nayak Jai Prakash High
School is tagged with High School Bela Kutir by the order of Bihar
-7-
School Examination Board and in this regard a certificate was granted by
the Principal of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash High School on 05.10.2010 .
certificate granted by the Principal of
Lok Nayak Jai Prakash High School
on 05.10.2010 is annexed herewith
this application.
16. That, it is stated that on the order of the learned Juvenile
Justice Board a Medical Board was also constituted for assessment of age of
the son of the petitioner and accordingly the son of the petitioner appeared
before the Medical Board and Medical Board assessed the age of the son of
the petitioner as major.
Report of the Medical Board is
disbelieved the evidence of witnesses as well as the documentary evidences
produced by the petitioner ,which is the essential proof/ evidence for
assessing the age of the son of the petitioner and only relied upon the report
of the Medical Board and the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide his
-8-
impugned order 03.07.2010 has been pleased to declare the petitioner as
major ( not juvenile).
application.
18. That, it is stated that in presence of the certificate of
Matriculation granted by the Board ,there is no necessity for assessment of
age to constitute the Medical Board but the learned Juvenile Justice Board
constitute the Medical Board and relied upon it and disbelieved the age
mentioned in the matriculation certificate.
19. That, it is stated that against the order of the learned Juvenile
Justice Board , Sitamarhi , the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi and registered as Cr. Appeal No.61 of
2010 / Sessions Trial No.03 of 2010 which was finally heard by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge ,Sitamarhi .
20. That, it is stated that learned Additional Sessions
Judge ,without considering the material available on record as also relied
upon the law involved in the case , has been pleased to dismiss the appeal
filed by the
-9-
petitioner vide his order dated 03.07.2010 and confirm the order passed by
the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi .
order dated 18.09.2010 passed by Sri Jagannath
Rai , the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge –cum- Special Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr.
Appeal No.61 of 2010/ Sessions Trial No.03 of
2010 and also the order dated 03.07.2010 passed
by the learned Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi
in Gr. No.588 of 2009 ,Trial No.492 of 2010

arising out of Dumra P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 ,the
above named petitioner begs to prefer this revision
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned courts
below failed to appreciate that the son of the petitioner had appeared in the
Matriculation Examination and in the admit card issued by the Bihar School
Examination Board the age of the son of the petitioner was mentioned as
13.02.1993 ,which is the consistent proof of the age of the son of the
petitioner .
-10-
III. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned courts
below failed to appreciate that the witnesses produced before the learned
Juvenile Justice Board consistently said that the son of the petitioner was
born on 13.02.1993 and on the date of occurrence the son of the petitioner
was minor i.e. below 18 years.
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Courts
failed to appreciate that in the evidence of witnesses as well as documentary
evidence there is no difference in between them ,therefore, there is no
occasion to constitute the Medical Board and rely upon the report of the
Medical Board.
V. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned courts
ought to have considered upon the report of the Medical Board who assessed
the age of son of the petitioner as major and disbelieved the certificates of
Matriculation where the actual date of birth was mentioned as 13.02.1993
and the same is consistent proof of the age .
Jagannath Rai , the learned Additional District
-11-
& Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge, Sitamarhi
in Cr. Appeal No.61 of 2010/ Sessions Trial
No.03 of 2010 and also the order dated
03.07.2010 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board , Sitamarhi in Gr. No.588 of 2009 ,Trial
No.492 of 2010 arising out of Dumra P.S. Case
No.65 of 2009.
AND/OR
CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2010.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Pramod Pandit ,son of Chandrika Pandit
Resident of village – Sikandara Tola Patori Musharai , Police- Station-
Sikandara, District – Jamui.
…………………………... PETITIONER
VERSUS
2. Tunni Devi, wife of Pramod Pandit ,
Resident of village-Sikandara Tola Patori Musharai , Police- Station –
Sikandara, District – Jamui.
To,
-2-
petitioner above named;
1. That, this petition has been filed for setting aside the order
dated 07.10.2010 passed by Sri Kameshwar Nath Rai , the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court , Jamui in Maintenance Case No.33 (M)
/2010 ,allowing a sum of Rs.1800/- per month to his wife Tunni Devi from
the date of filing of this petition and pay the amount of maintenance
allowance by 15th of each successive month .
2. That, the petitioner has not come to this Hon'ble Court for
filing previously any petition against this impugned order.
3. That, a petition for maintenance was filed by the Opposite-
party no.2 before the learned Principal Judge , Family Court, Jamui stating
therein that she is the legally wedded wife of petitioner and marriage was
performed in the year 2002 as per Hindu Rites and customs.
4. That, the Opposite-party no.2 has two children from the
wedlock of her husband (petitioner ) namely Khusbu Kumari aged about -6
years and Rohit Kumar aged about 4 years.
5. That, it is stated that a few days after the marriage ,the
petitioner along with relatives started torturing her for non-fulfillment of
-3-
their demand of Rs.20,000/- and ultimately she was driven out in the
month of September , 2007 .
6. That, according to the Opposite-party no.2 ( wife of the
petitioner ) ,the Opposite-party no.2 came to their paternal house and filed
a dowry torture case No.529(C) /2008 against the petitioner and his
family members.
7. That , as per the statement of the Opposite-party no.2,
petitioner is the Mechanic and earning Rs.6,000/- per month apart from
having one Bigha of fertile land from which he (petitioner ) has annual
income of Rs.10,000/- . It is also alleged by the Opposite-party no.2 that
petitioner has been neglecting and refusing to maintain the requirement of
8. That, it is pertinent to mention here that without analyzing the
statement of petitioner in its totality the learned court below instead to
the petitioner to award maintenance allowance per month Rs.1200/- to the
applicant (wife ) and Rs.300/-per month to each children . Altogether
Rs.1800/- is being directed by the learned court below on 7 th October,
2010.
9. That, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized in the year
2002 with the Opposite-party no.2 , the conjugal life of the petitioner and
Opposite-party no.2 has been on peacefully and later on two children were
borne.
-4-
10. That, it is remarkable to mention here that one Prakash Pandit ,
who is the brother-in-law of the Opposite-party no.2 used to come in the
house of the petitioner time to time . His continuous visit in the house of
the petitioner turned into the illicit relationship with the wife of the
petitioner .
11. That, it is also important to mention here that the wife of the
petitioner began to say to the petitioner that she would like to go her
Maike . She began to hammer on this request again and again that she
would go her Maike . Ultimately , petitioner had to option except send her
Maike . After some time petitioner went to his Sasural for taking his family
but she refused vehemently to reside with the petitioner but petitioner made
request several times to come back in her house from her Maike.
12. That , all the request went in vain and ultimately Opposite-
party (wife of the petitioner ) stated clearly that she would not go with him
in his home. Therefore, petitioner came back his house alone.
13. That, all of a sudden the Opposite-party no.2 filed a dowry
torture case no.529(C) of 2008 against the petitioner and his family
members .When he came to know about this case be became shocked .
Petitioner again approached to his wife through his well wishers but no
positive result came.
14. That, the Opposite-party lodged a complaint case bearing
no.529(C) of 2008 in connivance with her brother –in-law namely Prakash
-5-
Pandit . Apart from that one Maintenance Case No.33(M) /2010 has been
filed by the wife of the petitioner in the court of learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Jamui.
It has become crystal clear from the above noted paragraphs
that the brother-in-law of the Opposite-party no.2 is the main architect of
the whole episode .
15. That, the reality is that petitioner is neither a mechanic nor
any kind of land rather he is landless . He is unemployed labour whose
monthly income is hardly Rs.1500/- to Rs.1600/- approximately.
16. That, the fixation of award has been made on the basis of two
things i.e. being a Mechanic getting Rs.6000/- per month as well as
Rs.10,000/- from the land of one Bigha both are absolutely false .
Therefore, the fixation of this award is not justified.
17. That, in spite of all these better experience ,petitioner is
always ready to keep his wife with full dignity and honour.
18. That, in the facts and circumstances in this case ,petitioner is
not in a position to pay the award of Rs.18,000/- per month to the
impugned order dated 07.10.2010 passed by Sri
Kameshwar Nath Rai , the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Jamui in Maintenance Case
-6-
No.33 ( M)/2010 , the above named begs to
other following
GROUNDS:
synthesized the case in its totality and due to which could come to a
reasonable stage .
III. For that , the learned court below has not properly appreciated
the evidence and statements lead by the petitioner ,whereas much
emphasis was given on the evidence of Opposite-party no.2.
IV. For that ,the amount of payment of maintenance is beyond the
capacity of the petitioner .
V. For that, petitioner is ready to keep his wife with full dignity
and honour.
VI. For that ,in reality petitioner is landless and unemployed
labour and the amount of maintenance is Rs.1800/- per month which
nothing but excessiveness and excessiveness is the philosophy of
destruction. Therefore ,it is not a balanced and reasonable order of the
learned court below .
-7-
VII. For that, when it has become clear that the petitioner has been
made an escape goat by the brother-in-law of his wife and his wife is
indulged with illicit relationship with her brother-in-law and living
continuously in her Maike where here brother-in-law is also living .
Petitioner is suffering from sentiment crisis because his daughter and son
both have been detached from him and living his wife .
VIII. For that, the brother-in-law of the Opposite-party no.2 i.e. wife
of the petitioner , is the main architect of the whole episode . He is the main
culprit but the learned court below is not saying anything upon him, which
indicates that the order is not balance at all.
IX. For that, in the facts and circumstances of the case ,the
parties ,call for the records of the learned court
below and after hearing the parties be further
pleased to set aside the order dated 07.10.2010
passed by Sri Kameshwar Nath Rai , the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in
Maintenance Case No.33 ( M)/2010 .
AND/OR
-8-
AND
passed by Sri Kameshwar Nath Rai , the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in
Maintenance Case No.33 ( M)/2010 may kindly
be stayed.

I.A. ( Crl.) NO.________________________/ OF 2010. ( Limitation )
IN
CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2010.
Section -5 of Limitation Act ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Damodar Singh , son of Late Pradeep Singh ,
Resident of village- Akilpur , P.S. Sonepur ,District – Saran at Chapra.
VERSUS
at Chapra.
-2-
To,
behalf of the petitioner above named;
1. That, this application is being filed with a prayer for condoning
the delay in filing the present criminal revising arising out of order dated
21s June, 2010 in Sessions Trial No.206 of 2010 passed by learned 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge , Saran at Chapra arising out of Sonepur P.S.
Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27 of the Arms
Act, whereby and where under the petitioner has not been discharged from
the charges .
2. That, the impugned order was passed on 21.06.2010 but since
the petitioner has not Opposite-party in the said case and as such he was
not aware regarding the said case.
3. That, the petitioner when he was on bed contacted to his friend
through telephone for getting certified copy of the order dated 21.06.2010
passed in Sessions Trial No.206/10 by learned 3 rd Additional Sessions
Judge , Saran at Chapra.
-3-
The friend of the petitioner assured that he ( friend of the
paragraph ) will try to get certified copy of the said order within a week .
After lapse of 10 days , the petitioner again approached to his friend
through telephone about the said order but he replied that he is out of
Station ,therefore, he could not get the certified copy of the said order.
4. That, when the petitioner became free from the illness then
petitioner approached the learned court below for obtaining the
certified copy of the order.
5. That, their requisition has been filed for getting certified
copy of the order on 22.09.2010 and the same has been made available to
the petitioner on 27th September, 2010.
6. That, the petitioner engage a lawyer on 29 th September, 2010
for filing of the revision .
7. That, the counsel for the petitioner examined the entire
records of the case and finally drafted then filed on 12.10.2010.
8. That, the Stamp Reporter pointed out the limitation has been
expired on 23.09.2010 ,therefore, the limitation petition may be filed in this
case.
9. That, the order was passed in Sessions Trial No.206 of 2010
on 21.06.2010 and the petitioner should be filed on or before 21.09.2010.
10. That, the requisition was filed for getting the certified copy of
the said order was made available on 27.09.2010 . Altogether , 6 days has
-4-
been consumed for getting the certified copy of the order so the revision
should be filed after deduction of consumed period for getting certified
copy on 27.09.2010 but it has been filed on 12.10.2010 . Altogether delay
is 15 days after deduction of the period given in the Act i.e. 90 days.
11. That, it is humbly and respectfully submitted that there is no
deliberate and intentional delay on the part of the petitioner to file this
criminal revision within the limitation period.
12. That, in view of the facts mentioned above , it would be
appropriate to condone the delay in filing the present petition.
13. That, the petitioner has not filed any other interlocutory
application for condonation of delay in filing of the present memo of
criminal revision
Lordships may graciously be pleased to allow this
application and accordingly be pleased to
condone the delay in filing of the present memo of
criminal revision .
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Kumarjeet Singh @ Kumar Jee , son of Bijay Singh ,
Resident of village- Sita Kund Dih , P.S. Munger Muffasil , District –
Munger, presently residing at Basudeopur Rajput Tola , P.S. Munger
Kotwali, District – Munger.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
dated 3rd September , 2010 passed in Cr. Appeal No.74 of 2010 by learned
Sri Man Mohan Sharan Lal , Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court
No.2 , Munger ,arising out of order dated 22.06.2010 passed by the learned
Principal Member of Juvenile Justice Board , Munger in G.R. No.600A of
2010 , Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.128 of 2010 registered for the
offences Under Section 25(10b)A/26/35 of the Arms Act , whereby and
where under the aforesaid appeal preferred by the petitioner in lower
appellate court has been dismissed by observing that there is no infirmity in
order dated 22.06.2010 by which the prayer for release on bail of the
petitioner was rejected .
Court any time earlier against the impugned orders .
3. That, the petitioner has been declared as Juvenile by an order
dated 15.06.2010 having his date of birth is 15.01.1995 mentioned in the
Admit Card of Matriculation as well as the testimony of his parents.
Report , in brief, is that the informant ,who is the Officer-in-Charge of
-3-
Purab Sarai Out Post recorded his self statement on 09/10.04.2010, stating
interalia that when the informant along with police party was on patrol duty
at about 23.45 O’ Clock , all of s sudden the informant heard the sound of
firing and hue and cry and the Station Head Officer of Kotwali was
informed by the informant through wireless and the other patrol party were
also informed by Station Head Officer of Kotwali Police- Station ,Munger
and the informant proceeded towards Dilawarpur and he saw that some
persons assembled there and two persons were being assaulted by the mob
and the police party interfered and came to know that the two miscreants
entered into the house of one Kamrul Haque for committing dacoity .
Thereafter the informant interrogated the petitioner and he disclosed his
name and after being searched one loaded country made pistol was
recovered from the possession of this petitioner and one live cartridge also
and one country made pistol was recovered from the possession of one
Sonu Mian ,whose name was disclosed by this petitioner and seizure list
was prepared and accordingly the First Information Report was lodged
bearing Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.128 of 2010 dated 10.04.2010
under Sections 25(1-b)A/26/35 of the Arms Act .
copy of the F.I.R. of Munger Kotwali
P.S. Case No.128 of 2010 is annexed
-4-
5. That , the petitioner admittedly a juvenile and he has been
falsely implicated in this case due to confusion because the petitioner was
coming from a marriage ceremony of his relative and when he reached
near Dilawarpur and he heard the sound of firing and hulla and due to fear
he started to flee away but on confusion the mob caught him along with
one miscreant Sonu Mian ,who is major and both the pistols were
recovered from his possession but the police has shown the pistols in
possession of the petitioner due to confusion and the seizure list of both
the country made pistol are same . In this way seems to be unbelievable
and in a planned manner the accusation of the petitioner was made.
6. That, the petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and there is
no any case except the present case is pending has been lodged against the
petitioner .
7. That, the petitioner is languishing in remand home since
12.04.2010 without any fault and the father of the petitioner undertakes
that he will not be the associates of any other known criminals and the
father of the petitioner also undertakes that his son shall not accompany
with bad elements of the localities are being released on bail.
8. That, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board , Munger by an order dated 22.06.2010
-5-
without considering the material aspect of the case because nothing has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather mob
and police with a view to show his achievement by catching a minor boy
and the lower appellate court has also misconceived the defense of the
petitioner as well as the infirmity committed by the learned Juvenile
Justice Board as per Section -12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and
Protection of Children )Act, 2000.

copy of the order dated 22.06.2010
passed by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Munger is annexed herewith
this application.
9. That, the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned
lower appellate court has failed to consider that the Sections
25(1-b)A/26/35 of the Arms Act is not made out against the petitioner
because the mob assaulted the petitioner and handed over to the police
but the informant in concocted manners shows the recovery of one loaded
country made pistol along with cartridges in upper pocket of his shirt which
is quite unbelievable .
10. That, it is also very much surprising to mention here that the
description of both country made pistol are quite same and the police
-6-
prepared seizure list of one country made pistol against the name of both
accused persons . It is apparent from the case-diary that there is criminal
antecedent against one Sonu Mian ,who has been arrested, it might have
been possible that both the country made pistol , were recovered from his
possession and it has been shown that one country made pistol was
recovered from this petitioner .

11. That, both the learned court below failed to consider that the
petitioner has no concerned with one Sonu Mian simply on the basis of
confessional statement of the informant ,the police concocted the
complicity of the petitioner .
12. That, the learned lower court also failed to consider the clean
antecedent of the petitioner and he has no concerned with the harden
criminal and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
order dated 3rd September , 2010 passed in Cr.
Appeal No.74 of 2010 by learned Sri Man Mohan
Sharan Lal , Additional Sessions Judge , Fast
Track Court No.2 , Munger as well as the order
Member of Juvenile Justice Board , Munger in
G.R. No.600A of 2010 , Munger Kotwali P.S.
Case No.128 of 2010,the above named petitioner
-7-
the other following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned Juvenile Justice Board , Munger as well
as the learned lower Appellate Court failed to consider the age of the
petitioner and rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner without
considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
III. For that, both the learned courts below have also not
considered the period of custody of the petitioner and passed the order
impugned illegally.
IV. For that, both the learned courts below should have considered
the provisions of Section -12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection
of Children )Act, 2000 .
V. For that , the learned court below as well as the appellate court
should have considered the clean antecedent of the petitioner as well as
undertakings given by the father of the petitioner .
VI. For that, the learned Court below as well as learned lower
appellate court should have examined the seizure list prepared by the
informant of this case with regard to description of the country made pistol
is quite same but both the learned court below have failed to consider this
aspect of the case.
-8-
VII. For that, both the impugned orders are bad in law and on facts
and the same is fit to be set aside .

aside the order dated 3rd September , 2010
passed in Cr. Appeal No.74 of 2010 by learned Sri
Man Mohan Sharan Lal , Additional Sessions
Judge , Fast Track Court No.2 , Munger as well
as the order dated 22.06.2010 passed by the
learned Principal Member of Juvenile Justice
Board , Munger in G.R. No.600A of 2010 arising
out of Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.128 of 2010
and be further pleased to enlarge the petitioner on
bail in connection with G.R. No.600A of 2010
arising out of Munger Kotwali P.S .Case No.128
of 2010 to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile
Justice Board, Munger.
AND/OR
-9-

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.

2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Kumarjeet Singh @ Kumar Jee , son of Bijay Singh ,
Resident of village- Sita Kund Dih , P.S. Munger Muffasil , District –
Munger, presently residing at Basudeopur Rajput Tola , P.S. Munger
Kotwali, District – Munger.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
dated 25th September , 2010 passed in Cr. Appeal No.91 of 2010 by learned
Sri Manmohan Sharan Lal , Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court
No.2 , Munger ,arising out of order dated 05.07.2010 passed by the learned
Principal Member of Juvenile Justice Board , Munger in G.R. No.599 of
2010 , Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.127 of 2010 , whereby and where
under the aforesaid appeal preferred by the petitioner in lower appellate
court has been dismissed by observing that there is no infirmity in order
dated 05.07.2010 by which the prayer for release on bail of the petitioner
was rejected .
Court any time earlier against the impugned orders .
3. That, the petitioner has been declared as Juvenile by an order
dated 01.06.2010 having his date of birth is 15.01.1995 mentioned in the
Admit Card of Matriculation as well as the testimony of his parents.

Report , in brief, is that on 09/10.04.2010 in the mid night on hearing the
noise of dry leaf of palm tree ,the informant woke up and opened the door
-3-
of his house then he saw one person entered into the courtyard and the
other person was on the roof of the informant after raising alarm , the
miscreants shot fire on the informant which hit on the wall and thereafter
they were fleeing away and the neighbours of the informant assembled
there after hearing the sound of ring as well as raised alarm and they
started to chase the miscreants and the villagers caught them and
meanwhile the police force reached there and on being searched two
country made pistols were recovered each from their possession and they
disclosed their name as petitioner and one Sonu Mian . Apart from this 5-6
persons were seen by fleeing away at the time of occurrence and
accordingly the informant has full believed that the miscreants came and
entered into the house for dacoity and accordingly the First Information
Report was lodged bearing Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.127 of 2010
under Sections 452, 458, 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27 of
the Arms Act .
copy of the F.I.R. of Munger Kotwali
P.S. Case No.127 of 2010 is annexed

5. That , the petitioner admittedly a juvenile and he has been
falsely implicated in this case due to confusion because the petitioner was
-4-
coming from a marriage ceremony of his relative and when he reached
near Dilawarpur and he heard the sound of firing and hulla and due to fear
he started to flee away but on confusion the mob caught him along with
one miscreant Sonu Mian ,who is major and both the pistols were
recovered from his possession but the police has shown the pistols in
possession of the petitioner due to confusion and the seizure list of both
the country made pistol are same . In this way seems to be unbelievable
and in a planned manner the accusation of the petitioner was made.
6. That, the petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and there is
no any case except the present case is pending has been lodged against the
petitioner .
7. That, the petitioner is languishing in remand home since
12.04.2010 without any fault and the father of the petitioner undertakes
that he will not be the associates of any other known criminals and the
father of the petitioner also undertakes that his son shall not accompany
with bad elements of the localities are being released on bail.
8. That, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board , Munger by an order dated 05.07.2010

without considering the material aspect of the case because nothing has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather mob
and police with a view to show his achievement by catching a minor boy
and the lower appellate court has also misconceived the defense of the
-5-
petitioner as well as the infirmity committed by the learned Juvenile
Justice Board as per Section -12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and
Protection of Children )Act, 2000.
learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Munger is annexed herewith and
application.
9. That, the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned
lower appellate court has failed to consider that the Section -395 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner because in the
case-diary itself there is no any evidence collected by the police with
regard to Section -395 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. That, both the learned court below failed to consider that the
petitioner has no concerned with one Sonu Mian simply on the basis of
confessional statement of the informant ,the police concocted the
complicity of the petitioner .

11. That, the learned lower court also failed to consider the clean
antecedent of the petitioner and he has no concerned with the harden
criminal and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
-6-
order dated 25th September , 2010 passed in Cr.
Appeal No.91 of 2010 by learned Sri Manmohan
Sharan Lal , Additional Sessions Judge , Fast
Track Court No.2 , Munger as well as the order
Member of Juvenile Justice Board , Munger in
G.R. No.599 of 2010 , Munger Kotwali P.S. Case
No.127 of 2010,the above named petitioner begs
other following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned Juvenile Justice Board , Munger as well
as the learned lower Appellate Court failed to consider the age of the
petitioner and rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner without
considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

III. For that, both the learned courts below have also not
considered the period of custody of the petitioner and passed the order
impugned illegally.
IV. For that, both the learned courts below should have considered
the provisions of Section -12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection
-7-
of Children )Act, 2000 .
V. For that , the learned court below as well as the appellate court
should have considered the clean antecedent of the petitioner as well as
undertakings given by the father of the petitioner .
VI. For that, the learned Court below should have considered the
facts and circumstances of this case as well as Section 395 of the Indian
Penal Code and allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code are not applicable
in the case of the petitioner .
VII. For that, both the impugned orders are bad in law and on facts
and the same is fit to be set aside .
aside the order dated 25th September , 2010
passed in Cr. Appeal No.91 of 2010 by learned Sri
Manmohan Sharan Lal , Additional Sessions

Judge , Fast Track Court No.2 , Munger as well
as the order dated 05.07.2010 passed by the
learned Principal Member of Juvenile Justice
Board , Munger in G.R. No.599 of 2010 arising
out of Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.127 of 2010
-8-
and be further pleased to enlarge the petitioner on
bail in connection with G.R. No.599 of 2010
arising out of Munger Kotwali P.S .Case No.127
of 2010 to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile
Justice Board, Munger.
AND/OR

CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2010.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Damodar Singh , son of Late Pradeep Singh ,
Resident of village- Akilpur , P.S. Sonepur ,District – Saran at Chapra.
VERSUS
at Chapra.
To,
-2-

1. That, the present petition of revision is directed against the
order dated 21st June, 2010 in Sessions Trial No.210 of 2010 passed by
offences Under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27
of the Arms Act ,whereby and where under the petitioner has not been
discharged from the charges.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble Court
earlier at any stage against the order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned
3rd Additional Sessions Judge , Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No.210
of 2010.
3. That, the prosecution case ,in short , as disclosed in the
Fardbeyan of one Chandrama Singh which was recorded by one Sub-
Inspector on 30.05.2008 at Sadar Hospital ,Hajipur ,alleging interalia as
follows :-
-3-
(i) That, at around 9.00 Clock on 30.05.2008 , the informant was
in his farm situated towards the west of the road at Akilpur
Mauza . The brother of the informant namely Shiv Prasad

Singh @ Shivji Singh was returning to his home and the
moment he reached near Vishwakarma Temple he was
surrounded by nine named accused persons armed with
weapons including the petitioner .
(ii) It is alleged that the brother of the informant cried that he
would be killed and thereafter the informant ran towards
him ,there he witnessed that all named accused persons had
apprehended his brother . Accused Surendra Singh directed to
all Shivji Singh and on this Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Pappu
Singh fired shot ,hitting his brother and thereafter the brother
of the informant fell down.
(iii) It is further alleged that all named accused persons threatened
the informant to flee away but the informant started crying and
thereafter Bashishtha Singh and Dilip Singh as well as other
persons came there running and then the named accused
persons fled away.
(iv) It is further stated that the informant carried his brother t the
Hajipur Hospital after loading him in a vehicle and there he was
declared dead.
-4-
(v) It is further claimed that the named accused persons killed the
brother of the informant . The reason for the incident is said to
be the farming of water melon by the Bataidar of the informant

as accused persons demanded extortion money and forcibly
occupied the same . A First Information Report bearing
Sonepur P.S. CaseNo.33 of 2007 was instituted for the same
wherein the case is going on against four named accused
persons. The accused persons are allegedly applying pressure
on the Bataidar to withdraw and compromise the case.
(vi) It is also alleged that a case is also going on against Rajdeo
Sharma @ Raja and Satish Sharma and the deceased was
taking carte of the case and for the aforesaid reason , the
accused persons have committed this offence.
informant , a First Information Report was drawn up on 31.05.2008 and
registered as Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008 under Section 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section -27 of the Arms Act.
A true /photo stat copy of the F.I.R.
of Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008
is annexed hereto and marked as
-5-
5. That, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not
been named in the First Information Report .

6. That, it is also very important to mention here that later on one
close relative namely Dilip Singh of the informant has stated that the
petitioner was also present near Vishwakarma Temple ( paragraph no.10
of the case-diary ,it has come in the impugned order ) .
7. That, it is important to analyze the paragraph no.53 of the
case-diary because it has also come in the impugned order of learned 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge , Saran at Chapra on the basis of that the
petitioner of the petitioner has been rejected . Paragraph no.53 of the case-
diary ( Supervision report ) speaks that – “ it appears that participation of
Damodar Singh appears because he was present in the temple before the
occurrence and he had not come at the place of occurrence after incident .
Paragraph nos.9 and 10 of the case-diary has also been evident in the
impugned order . These are the statement of the interested witnesses. On
the basis of two paragraphs the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge ,
Saran at Chapra has rejected the petition of the petitioner .
8. That, in fact petitioner has been falsely implicated in this
case only on the basis of that assumption that the two sons of the petitioner
are the named accused in the First Information Report.
9. That, in reality petitioner was taken in custody to make a
pressure tactics to surrender the two sons of the petitioner before the police .
-6-
10. That, even if the alleged allegation upon the petitioner is
analyzed it would become crystal clear that the said temple was at a
distance of 150 yards from the place of occurrence.
11. That, it is humbly stated and submitted that the reason for the
incident is said to be a dispute between the parties over a land for which
Sonepur P.S. Case No.33 of 2007 was instituted . It is quite pertinent to
state here in this context that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure was also initiated with respect to the same land by
one Sunil Kumar ( Bataidar of the informant ) and the same was dropped
vide order dated 19.06.2007 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional
Magistrate , Sonepur , Saran .The petitioner craves the leave of this Hon'ble
Court to produce a copy of the aforesaid order at the time of hearing of the
bail application ,if required.
12. That, it is relevant to mention here that occurrence took place
on 30.05.2008 and on 31.05.2008 in the daily Newspaper “Hindustan” it
was published that two unknown persons riding on Motorcycle have
committed this offence. This is the real fact of the occurrence ,which has
become crystal clear later on when the two sons of the deceased killed one
Shankar Singh by sharp edged weapons and threw his dead body in the
river . The said Shankar Singh is not an accused in the First Information
Report ,who is in fact the main accused . This indicates that the First
Information Report is nothing but a bundle of lies.
-7-
13. That, it is also important to mention here that one Indal Singh
@ Indra Mohan Singh ,who is a named accused figures at serial no.3 in the
First Information Report was not present on the place of occurrence ,rather
he was at Samastipur for participating in physical efficiency test conduct by
East Central Railway ( Recruitment Cell) on 30.05.2008 . The reporting time
was 8.00 A.M. He had participated and qualified . This clearly indicates that
the inclusion of name of Indra Mohan Singh is false.
A true /photo stat copy of the Call
Letter is annexed herewith and
application.
14. That, the deceased namely Shivji Singh was a man of criminal
antecedent and several criminal cases of serious nature such as murder ,
attempt to murder etc. are pending against him and his family members . It
is relevant to refer here some of the cases instituted against him and family
members e.g. Sonepur P.S. Case No.146 of 1992 , Sonepur P.S. Case
No.34 of 2000, Dariyapur P.S. Case No.103 of 2001 and Dariyapur P.S.
Case No.71 of 2008 etc. In view of the aforesaid fact this possibility
cannot be ruled out that persons inimical to him might have killed the
deceased. It is quite pertinent to state here in this context that the sons of the
deceased namely Nawal Singh and Dilip Singh came to know any how that
their father namely Shivji Singh has been killed by one Shankar Singh of
-8-
Fatehpur ( Raghopur) of the Vaishali District and ,therefore, just few days
after the death of their father ,they forcibly took out the said Shankar Singh
while traveling in a Tempo and killed him by sharp edged weapon and
threw his dead body in the river . The aforesaid occurrence was also reported
in the newspaper .
A true photo stat copy of the News
Paper is annexed herewith and
application.
15. That, the petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.
16. That, it has become crystal clear that petitioner is quite
innocent and he has become an escape goat in this case only due to the
previous enmity and dirty politics of the village.
17. That, in view of the matter, the impugned order is fit to be set
aside.
impugned order of not discharging dated
21.06.2010 passed by learned 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge , Saran at Chapra in Sessions
Trial No.206 of 2010 , the above named petitioner
-9-
the other following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned trial court wrongly passed the order
without applying the reasonable mind and without going in its totality.
III. For that, the learned trial court has committed serious
illegality in rejecting the prayer of discharging the petitioner from a false
case.
IV. For that, the learned trial court has not appreciated that the
whole First Information Report is nothing but a bundle of lies .
V. For that, the learned trial court did not apply his mind on the
contradictions of the statement of the interested witnesses which reveals the
reality.
VI. For that, the learned trial court committed serious illegality in
rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioner in spite of knowing the
previous enmity between the parties.
VII. For that, in any view of the matter , the impugned order of not
discharging has been arrived at by overlooking the material evidence on the
record and also by wrong appreciation of considering the contradictory
statements ,being manifest error on the point of law resulting to flagrant
-10-
miscarriage of justice. Thus, the impugned order is unsustainable in the
eye of law and fit to be set aside.
pleased to set
aside the order dated 21.06.2010 passed by
learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge , Saran at
Chapra in Sessions Trial No.206 of 2010.
AND/OR
AND
and further proceeding in Sessions Trial No.206
of 2010 pending in the court of learned 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge , Saran at Chapra may
kindly be stayed.

IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.

AND
In the matter of :-
Dashrath Pandit ….……..…………..……………..……PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and another………………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri Dipak Misra , the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
the High Court of Judicature at Patna and His Lordship
-2-
application.
directed against the order dated 25th March, 2010 .

4. That, it is stated that the petitioner is a poor and illiterate
person and he is living outside the State for his livelihood as well as his
family members and at the time of passing of the impugned judgment and
order dated 25th March , 2010 , the petitioner was not present in his native
village .
5. That, it is stated that in the last week of July, 2010 , the
petitioner has got knowledge about the impugned order dated 25.03.2010
by which the Opposite-party no.2 was acquitted then the petitioner
immediately rushed to Patna and contacted the learned Advocate for filing
of the present revision application.
communication gap as mentioned above .
-3-
application .
AND/OR
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Dashrath Pandit , son of Late Gena Pandit ,
Resident of village- Lalbandi Tola , P.S. Sonebarsa , District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Braj Kishore Sah, son of
Resident of village- P.S. District – Sitamarhi.
To,
-2-
and order dated 25th March , 2010 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey ,
learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.3 Sitamarhi in
Sessions Trial No.102 of 2000/ 01 of 2010 arising out of Sonebarsa P.S.
Case No.46 of 1997 registered for the offences under Sections
302,201,420,467,468,471,120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code , whereby
and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to
discharge/ acquit the Opposite-party no.2 from the aforesaid charges
leveled against him on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed
to establish the case .
Report , which was lodged on the basis of written report of the petitioner
(P.W.12) submitted before the O.P. Incharge of Lalbandi Out Post on
04.08.1997 , in brief , is that deceased Rijhan Pandit aged about -70 years
was issueless and had no one in his near relative and he was the distant
relative of the petitioner (informant ) . The informant further said that he
looked after him and provided food and deceased had been taking food in
-3-
the house of informant since last four years but he slept in his house and
the deceased requested the informant to get gift deed executed in respect of
his homestead land and informant avoided the same and deceased Rijhan
Pandit started lying emphasis upon informant . On 28.07.1997 to get gift
deed executed in respect of 2 decimals land and informant became ready to
get gift deed executed at Bhatahi Registration Office on 29.07.1997 and
villagers knew the same fact and informant returned home at 9 P.M. on
29.07.1997 from the house of deceased having caused food to eat him and
deceased slept in his home. The informant further said that the house of the
deceased was made of thatched having no shutter ,situated at 15 Luggaies
away from the house of informant and when on next morning , deceased
did not come to the house of informant , the informant went to the house of
deceased to see him then he found the dead body of the deceased was lying
on mat . The informant further said that throat of deceased was swelling
and blood was oozing from the nose and mouth of the deceased and tongue
of deceased was protruded and a lot of persons assembled there on alarm
and they saw the dead body of the deceased. The informant further said that
he got knowledge that the accused persons had their eyes on homestead land
of the deceased and they were seen coming from the house of the deceased
at 1 O’ Clock at night and he also came to know that Siya Sharan Sah and
his brother including accused got a sale –deed in respect of homestead land
of deceased executed on 19.07.1997 having set up another person and when
-4-
they knew that deceased was going to execute gift deed on 29.07.1997 in
respect of the homestead land , they murdered him having pressed the throat
of the deceased . The informant further said he went to inform Lal Bandi
Outpost where Police Sub-Inspector was not present then he submitted
petition on that day and informant came to know that accused along with
other accused having armed with arms carried away the dead body of
deceased to village-Nepal and cremated the same.
proceeded with the investigation and during the course of investigation the
Investigating Officer recovered the dead body of the deceased and sent for
Post-Mortem and visited the place of occurrence and recorded the
statement of so many independent witnesses in the case –diary ,who
supported the prosecution version .
Opposite-party no.2 under Sections 302,201,420,467,468 , 120 (B) of the
Indian Penal Code and the investigation was pending against rest accused
persons .
against the Opposite-party no.2 Under Sections 302,201, 420,467, 468,
-5-
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code after going through the material available
in the case-diary .
framed against the Opposite-party no.2 under Sections 302,201, 120B and
468 of the Indian Penal Code .
P.W.1 : Ram Swarath Rai ,
P.W.2 : Ram Pratap Pandit
P.W.3 : Laldeo Rai
P.W.4 : Bindeshwar Rai
P.W.5 : Laddu Rai
P.W.6 : Brahmdeo Prasad Yadav
P.W.7 : Surendra Prasad Yadav,
P.W.8 : Shankar Prasad Yadav,
P.W.9 : Nagendra Pandit ,
P.W.10 : Ram Bilash Baitha

P.W.11. : Md. Nasir Khan
P.W.12 : Dasrath Pandit ,
P.W.13 : Nagendra Kumar Singh (Investigating Officer )
P.W.14 : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh , who conducted the post-mortem of
-6-
deceased.
Ext.1 :Signature of witnesses Shambhu Shankar Yadav on Fardbeyan
Ext.1/1 :Signature of witness Yogendra Pandit
Ext.2 : Formal First Information Report
Ext.3 : Post- Mortem Report .
10. That, it is stated that in his deposition P.W.14 Dr. Ashok Kumar
Singh , who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased , opined that the
cause of death of the deceased due to shock and hemorrhage resulting sharp
cut injury on neck of the deceased .
11. That, it is stated that P.W.1 ,2 ,4 and 9 in his evidence deposed
that he went to the door of deceased on alarm he saw the deceased was
lying dead .
12. That, it is stated that P.W.3 in his deposition said that he went
at the door of deceased on alarm and found that the deceased dead with
swelling on his neck ,broken teeth , bleeding from mouth and mark of
dragging on his heel.

12. That, it is stated that P.W.12 informant in his evidence deposed
that he went to the door of the deceased in morning, he saw deceased was
lying dead and blood was oozing from his mouth and tongue was
protruded and his teeth were broken .
-7-
13. That, it is stated that P.W.10 in his evidence deposed that at 12
O’ Clock in the night , he woke up to urinate and heard conversation in the
house of deceased and when he was going to sleep having made water , he
saw Opposite-party no.2 along with other accused coming out from the
house of the deceased and on next day he heard that deceased was dead
and the said fact he narrated to villagers .
14. That, it is stated that almost all the prosecution witnesses
examined on behalf of the prosecution had fully supported the prosecution
case .
consideration ,the consistent evidence of the P.W. 10 who specifically
said that he saw the Opposite-party no. 2, coming out from the house of the
deceased in the night and the same was also supported by other
witnesses , acquitted the Opposite-party no. 2 from the charges.
Opposite-party no. 2 only on the ground that the prosecution has failed to
brought the sale-deed with respect to land of the deceased which was
executed in the name of accused persons on the record .

judgment and order dated 25th March , 2010
passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey , learned
Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.3
-8-
2010, the above named petitioner begs to prefer
following
GROUNDS:
II. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party no. 2 , the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.10 in his evidence specifically
said that he saw the Opposite-party no. 2 along with other accused persons ,
coming out from the house of the deceased in the night.
III. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party no. 2 the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.3 and 12 , in his
evidence specifically said that after hearing hulla they had gone to the house
of the deceased then they saw the deceased died and his mouth blood was
oozing and the said fact was also supported by the other prosecution
witnesses .
IV. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party no. 2 , the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.14 , who conducted the post-
mortem of the deceased, in his evidence specifically said that the cause of
-9-
death of the deceased due to shock and hemorrhage resulting sharp cut
injury on neck of the deceased
V. For that , the learned trial failed to consider the material
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party no. 2 from the charges
leveled against them .
VI. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
well as involvement of Opposite-party no.2 in the said offence .
VII. For that, the learned trial court merely on the ground of the
prosecution has failed to produce the sale deed executed in favour of the
accused persons on record ,acquitted the Opposite-party no.2 from the
charges.
VIII. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party no. 2 , the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that against the Opposite-party no.2 had
complete intention and circumstance for killing of the deceased and he was
seen by the witnesses in the midnight from coming to the house of the
deceased.
IX. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
application, issue notice to the opposite-parties
-10-
,call for the records of the learned trial court and
aside the judgment and order dated 25 th March ,
2010 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey ,
nos. 2 for the charges leveled against him .
AND/OR

IN ,
THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
K A T I H A.
Criminal Appeal NO._________________/OF 2010.
Section -5 of the Limitation Act ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Dip Narayan Gupta and others………..……………………APPELLANTS.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and another……...…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
behalf of the appellants above
named;
1. That, the present application on behalf of the appellants above
named is for condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal on the

ground that the delay in filing of the present appeal is not intentional but
because of unavoidable circumstances as stated hereunder.
2. That, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants against
the judgment and order dated 14.01.2009 passed by the learned Judicial
-2-
Magistrate 1st Class, Katihar in Trial No.264 of 2009.
3. That, it is stated that immediately after obtaining a certified
copy of the aforesaid order , the appellants had handed over their file to a
learned Advocate of Katihar Court and he was instructed to file appeal
before this Hon'ble Court.
4. That, the file was handed over to the learned Advocate with all
documents before the expiry of limitation period for filing of appeal against
the impugned order of conviction .
5. That, since the appellants were set out free by the learned
Magistrate himself ,therefore, after handing over the file to the learned
Advocate, the appellants were under the impression that the learned
Advocate must have filed the appeal on their behalf and ,therefore, they had
not consulted their learned Advocate to know about the further steps about
the filing of the appeal.
6. That, when the appeal filed by a co-accused Rameshwar
Mandal was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 11.03.2010 and the
appellants got the knowledge about such dismissal , they had tried their best
to consult their Lawyer but for the reason that he was not available in the
house or in the court they could not met.
7. That, ultimately they could meet the learned Advocate on
14.05.2010 ,when they came to know that he had not filed any appeal on
behalf of the present appellants and the file too has been lost from his
-3-
office .
8. That, for the aforesaid reason alone , the appeal was not filed
before this Hon'ble Court in time.
9. That, in fact there is no intentional latches on the part of the
present appellants preferred appeal in time and thus in delay in filing of the
appeal is not condoned , the appellants would suffer an irreparable loss and
injury .
10. That, the appellants had not committed any offence
and ,therefore, they don’t want to leave the world with a stigma on their
conduct and behaviour .
11. That, the appellants have not filed any application like the
Honour may graciously be pleased to condone the
delay in filing the present memo of appeal.
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Honour
And for this ,the appellants shall ever pray.
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
AND
In the matter of :-
Vijay Paswan ,son of Late Paltu Paswan ,
Resident of village- Baswari Tola, P.S. Sitamarhi ,District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
To,
The Hon’ble Shri Dipak Misra , the Hon'ble Chief Justice of
-2-
and order dated 29.07. 2009 passed by Sri Bhubna Nand Jha , the learned
2nd Additional Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 32 of 2003 /12
of 2009 , whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge
has been pleased to reject the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner and
confirmed the judgment and order dated 04.08.2003 passed by Sri Narayan
Prasad Singh , the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi
Sadar in Trial No.927 of 2003 arising out of G.R. No.937 of 1998 , by
which the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to
convict the petitioner to undergo R.I. for three years for the charge Under
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, six months for the charge Under
Section -504 of the Indian Penal Code and one month for the charge under
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code however all the sentences run
concurrently .
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, as per the is that the
informant Sita Ram Paswan gave his Fardbeyan before the Police on
28.07.1998 at 1.325 hours at Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi, alleging therein that
he was a Clerk at Block Office ,Riga and lived with family and Baswariya
Tola , Sitamarhi but due to flood at that time his wife and daughter Sarita
-3-
Kumar were living at Mehsaul Chowk in the house of his office Staff Bijay
Kumar Singh . The informant further alleged that in the morning , he went
to his wife to deliver some articles and while returning at 9.30 hours in the
way , two ladies of that Mohalla reported that Paltu Paswan and Raju
Paswan and wife of Paltu Paswan had entered in his house with Bhala to
kill his younger brother Raj Kumar and they were calling bad
names ,therefore, he rushed to his house and found three of them , variously
armed with Bhala , Fatta and Danda at his door and the moment he
reached , all of them started calling names and assault by means of Bhala,
Danda , the accused Vijay Paswan inflicted Bhala due to which one finger
of his left had was chopped and other fingers also sustained cut injury . The
informant further alleged that his son Kishore Kumar , Raju Kumar and
younger brother Raj Kumar rushed there and they were assaulted by
Danda , due to which Kishore Kumar and Raju Kumar sustained ruptured
injury over his head , he became senseless , his son Kishore with friend
Suresh tried to take him to Hospital , upon which Vijay Kumar , Kalika
Singh , Rameshwar Singh and Bindeshwar Bhandari started calling names to
Suresh not to get him treated and when he gained sense then all of them
again assaulted him by Danda but in the meantime , friends of his son came
and then accused persons fled away.
4. That, it is stated that on the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan of
the informant , Sitamarhi Police drew up a formal First Information Report
-4-
and registered a case being Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.187 of 1998 dated
28.07.1998 attributing offences under Section 341,323,324,326,504,447/34
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others .
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner and others .
8. That, it is stated that thereafter the learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner and others and at
the time of framing of the charge , the petitioner and others pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
prosecution witnesses were examination by prosecution such as P.W.1 Raj
Kumar Paswan , P.W.2 Baleshwar Prasad Singh Investigating Officer of
the case , P.W.3 Sitaram Paswan, the informant himself , P.W.4 Dr. Jai
Prakash Bihari, who examined the injured and P.W.5 Kishore Kumar.
10. That, it is stated that on behalf of the evidence documentary
evidences were produced out of which Exhibit-A is the certified copy of the
formal First Information Report and Fardbeyan of Sitamarhi P.S. Case
No.186 of 1998 dated 28.07.1998 which was lodged by the father of the
-5-
petitioner namely Paltu Paswan and Exhibit - B is the Charge-sheet in
which the informant of present case namely Sitaram Paswan , Raj Kumar
Paswan and Raju Kumar were charge-sheet under Sections 323,324,325,341
and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code .
11. That, it is stated that in the Cross- examination P.W.1
admitted about counter case filed by the father of the petitioner . He also
gave contradictory statement during the course of trial which was made
before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure .
12. That, P.W.2 Investigating Officer of the Case in his evidence
said that he did not find sign of blood or brick or stone and he did not meet
any injured persons at the place of occurrence.
13. That, it is stated that P.W. 3 informant of the case in his
deposition also gave contradictory statement ,which was given before the
Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
14. That, it is stated that the informant dug a ditch to close the
Rasta in which Krishna fell down and on being opposed , he slapped him on
face and when the father of the petitioner opposed it ,then he assaulted the
petitioner , his father namely Paltu Paswan and Krishna by sword and for
this the father of the petitioner lodged a case bearing Sitamarhi P.S. Case
No.186 of 2008 dated 28.07.1998 and to save his skin from that case , the
-6-
informant cut his finger by sword and lodged this false case against the
petitioner and others.
15. That, it is stated that on behalf of the prosecution no any
independent witnesses was produced ,rather all the witnesses except
Investigating Officer and Doctor are interested and co-related to each other.

Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar, without taking into the consideration the
material available on record as well as the prosecution failed to produce the
deposition of each other , convicted the petitioner and his father to
undergo R.I. for three years for the charge Under Section 326 of the
Indian Penal Code, six months for the charge Under Section -504 of the
Indian Penal Code and one month for the charge under Section 341 of the
Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2003.
-7-
by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi
2003 /12 of 2009 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner was
released on bail .
by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi ,who also
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order passed by
the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,Sadar Sitamarhi vide
judgment and order dated 29.07.2009 without applying his judicial mind.
petitioner had gone to outside the State for earning their livelihood and the
the petitioner in the appeal did not inform the petitioner about the dismissal
of appeal and when the petitioner has come his native village , he has got
knowledge of the dismissal of appeal then he surrendered before the
learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar on
27.04.2010.
-8-
application.
20. That, the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he has
judgment and order dated 29.07. 2009 passed

by Sri Bhubna Nand Jha , the learned 2 nd
Additional Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi in Cr.
Appeal no. 32 of 2003 /12 of 2009 as also the
Sri Narayan Prasad Singh , the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar in
Trial No.927 of 2003 arising out of G.R. No.937
of 1998, the above named petitioner begs to
other following
GROUNDS:
-9-

court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that it is admitted fact
that prior to lodging of the present case by the informant ,the father of the
informant lodged a case against the informant and others and for saving their
skin the informant of the present case lodged the case against the petitioner
and others .
trustworthy .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that Investigating
-10-
Officer P.W.2 in his evidence said that he did not find sign of blood or
brick or stone and he did not meet any injured person there .
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
failed to produce one Raju Kumar , who also injured and his evidence is
necessary for ends of justice .

court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that from saving his skin
from the case lodged by the father of the petitioner , the informant himself
cut his finger and lodged the present false case against the petitioner and
others .
X. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
XI. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
-11-
the judgment and order dated 29.07. 2009
passed by Sri Bhubna Nand Jha , the learned 2 nd

Additional Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi in Cr.
Appeal no. 32 of 2003 /12 of 2009 as also the
Sri Narayan Prasad Singh , the learned Sub-
Trial No.927 of 2003 arising out of G.R. No.937
of 1998and discharge the petitioner from the
charges .
AND/OR
A ND
-12-
Sadar Sitamarhi in Trial No.927 of 2003 arising
out of G.R. No.937 of 1998.


Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Rameshwar Mandal, son of Late Ghoghan Mandal ,
Resident of village-Sohtha , P.S. Falka ,District – Katihar.
VERSUS
2. Asharfi Mandal , son of Late Sant Lal Mandal ,
Resident of village- Gopal Patti , P.S. Falka, District -Sitamarhi.
To,
-2-
dated 11.03.2010 passed by Sri R.K. Rateria ,the learned Sessions Judge ,
Katihar in Cr. Appeal No.10 of 2010 , whereby and where under the learned
Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
14.01.2009 passed by Sri O.P. Srivastava , the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Katihar in Case No.CA-2309 of 1999 on the ground that the appeal
was barred by limitation and no ground was made out in the limitation
petition to condone the delay in filing of appeal.
3. That, Cr. Appeal No.10 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner
against the judgment dated 14.01.2009 passed by Sri O.P. Srivastava , the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Katihar in Case No. Counter-
Affidavit-2309 of 1999 ,whereby and where under the learned Judicial

Magistrate was pleased to pass an order of conviction against the petitioner
for the offences under Section 147, 323, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code
but the learned Magistrate was further pleased to observe that the ends of
-3-
justice will be made if convicts are let out on due condemned instead of
awarding any substantive punishment .
judgment and order dated
14.01.2009 passed in Case No.CA-
2309 of 1999 is annexed herewith and
application.
4. That, the case of the petitioner is that the Opposite-party no.2
had filed a complaint case in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate , Katihar on 15.12.1999 against the petitioner and four other
accused persons ,alleging therein interalia that on the date and time of
occurrence i.e. on 09.12.2009 ,while he was in his house one Giro
Chaudhary informed him that the accused persons named in the complaint
that the accused persons are ploughing his land in which he had planted
crop and other persons of criminal character having Riffle and country
made pistol had surrounded the field from four sides .

He further alleged that upon such information when the
complainant reached in the field , he found the statement of Giro Chaudhary
true . He also found that Police Personnel had tied hands of his wife and
both daughter-in-law of Sadhu Mandal by the rope of the hand chief and
-4-
they were tied in a Boring in the filed . After watching the said
occurrence ,the complainant asked from Deep Narayan Gupta as to why he
was cultivating his land , Deep Narayan Gupta ordered other accused
persons to assault the complainant whereupon other accused persons
assaulted the complainant by Lathi and accused Sato Mandal had snatched
Rs.3,500/- from her pocket .
He further alleged that all the accused persons assaulted the
complainant and he was also tied by the same rope like an animal . Though
the police personnel were present there but no body could hear the cry of
the complainant.
He further alleged that after ploughing the land , the
complainant and others were released and thereafter all of them proceeded
on a Jeep after threatening the complainant and if he would again come on
the field , he would be killed.
5. That, aforesaid complaint case filed by the Opposite-party no.2
was registered as Complaint Case No.2309 of 1999 wherein after enquiry
under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , cognizance was
taken for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, and 427 of the Indian
Penal Code and the petitioner along with four other accused persons were
put on trial.
complaint petition case No.CA-2309
-5-
application.
6. That, during the course of trial ,the complainant had examined
only three witnesses and one witness was examined on behalf of the
defense .Besides oral evidence ,the original sale-deed no.8739 dated
18.05.1979 ,the order-sheet of proceeding under Section 48(D) of the B.T.
Act passed by the Circle Officer , Falka , rent receipt of land in question for
the year 2006-07 and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in
C.W.J.C.No.845 and 846 /1978 was also produced as exhibits on behalf of
the defense .
7. That, on behalf of the petitioner and other accused
persons ,there was total denial about any such occurrence as alleged by the
complainant . In defense the documentary evidence were also produced to
show that the land in question is coming in their peaceful possession since
the date of execution of sale-deed by the original landlord in favour of Deep
Narain Gupta and the complainant’s claim of Sikmi Right has been set
aside by this Hon'ble Court .On behalf of the defense it was also submitted
that out of 8 witnesses named in the complaint only three has been examined
in the court and they all are family members of the complainant .
-6-
8. That, the learned Magistrate accepted the oral evidence
adduced on behalf of the complainant and disbelieved the documentary
evidence filed on behalf of the accused persons without discussing it in the
impugned order as to why it is being disbelieved . The learned Magistrate
also ignored to consider that according to the complaint case , the
occurrence took place on 09.12.2009 and the complaint was filed on
15.12.2006 i.e. after 6 days of the occurrence and there is no explanation
about the delay. The learned Magistrate also overlooked the serious
contradiction in between the statement of witnesses examined during the
trial and vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.01.2009 ,all the
accused persons were convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 427
of the Indian Penal Code but while passing the order of sentence the
learned Magistrate was pleased to grant the benefits of the probation of
Offenders Act to the accused persons and they were released after
condemning them .
9. That, immediately thereafter the petitioner and all other
accused persons convicted by the learned Magistrate handed over necessary

papers to his learned Advocate for filing of an appeal against the judgment
but some formalities were left to be completed for filing of appeal.
10. That, unfortunately ,the petitioner became seriously ill
and ,therefore, he could not consult his learned Advocate for a long time.
-7-
11. That, on 18.02.2010 ,the petitioner was discharged from the
Hospital and thereafter he consulted his lawyer on 22.02.2010 and
instructed his lawyer to file Criminal Appeal against the impugned
judgment and order.
A true photo stat copy of the Medical
Certificate is annexed herewith and
application.
12. That, after receiving the instruction from the petitioner , the
appeal was filed on 24.02.2010 in the court of learned Sessions Judge ,
Katihar which was numbered as Cr. Appeal No.10 of 2010 .
13. That, since the appeal was barred by limitation on the date of its
filing for no fault on the part of the petitioner , an application under Section
5 of Limitation Act was also filed to condone the delay in filing of the
Criminal Appeal . It is true that the condonation application under Section -
5 of the Limitation Act was not happily worded nor the medical certificate
was brought on record in support of the application for condonation of delay
but apparently it was not a mistake on the part of the petitioner .It is stated
that the petitioner had already submitted his medical certificate to his
learned Lawyer to be placed before the court along with the application
under Section -5 of the Limitation Act.
-8-
14. That, after consideration of the limitation petition ,since the
learned Sessions Judge was not persuaded to condone the delay , the said
limitation petition was dismissed and consequently the appeal was dismissed
by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.03.2010.
dated 11.03.2010 passed by Sri R.K. Rateria ,the
learned Sessions Judge , Katihar in Cr. Appeal
No.10 of 2010 ,the above named petitioner begs
other following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, there was no intentional latches on the part of the
petitioner in filing of Criminal Appeal ,rather it had so happened because
he was suffering from a terminal disease for which he was admitted in the
hospital for a long time.

III. For that, though the petitioner took steps for filing of instant
appeal immediately after he was released for the hospital ,but due to
inadvertence the medical certificate of the petitioner was not annexed with
the limitation petition as a result of whereof the limitation petition as also
the Criminal Appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge .
-9-
IV. For that, while dismissing the Criminal Appeal ,the learned
Sessions Judge should have granted liberty to the petitioner to bring on
record the evidence in support of limitation petition.
V. For that, while dismissing the Criminal Appeal ,the learned
Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that for a fault , committed by a lawyer ,
partly should not suffer and ,therefore, he should have taken a lenient view
and should have condone the delay and decided the appeal on merits.
set aside the order dated 11.03.2010 passed by Sri
R.K. Rateria ,the learned Sessions Judge , Katihar
in Cr. Appeal No.10 of 2010.
AND/OR
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Liladhar Jha , son of Late Subansh Jha ,
Resident of village- Bishwanathpur , P.S. Dumra , District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
dated 31.03.2010 passed by Sri Nand Kishore Tiwary , the learned
Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.1 , Sitamarhi in Cr.
Appeal No.19 of 2001/ 01 of 2010 whereby and where under the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the appeal filed by the
petitioner and confirm the order dated 16.01.2010 passed by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi in Gr. No.588 of 2009 ,Trial No.522 of
2009 arising out of Dumra P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 by which the learned
Juvenile Justice Board has been pleased to declare the son of the petitioner
namely Ranjeet Kumar @ Chhotu as major ( not juvenile ) at the time of
alleged occurrence i.e. 15.02.2009.

3. That, the informant namely Umesh Sah filed a written report
before the Station Head Officer of Dumra Police- Station on 20.02.2009 ,
alleging therein that his son Navin Kumar was residing in the house of his
grand father ( Nana ) since childhood for the purposes of reading . The
informant further alleged that on 15.02.2009 at about 11 P.M. one Sunil
Kumar Mandal called his son by telephone for seeing the movie and on his
call , his son had gone with Sunil Mandal but his son did not return to house
-3-
till 20.02.2009 . The informant suspected that his son might be kidnapped
by Sunil Mandal for the purposes of ransom.
Dumra Police drew up a formal First Information Report and registered a
case being Dumra P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 dated 20.02.2009 registered for
the offences under Section 364 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and further
added Section 302,201 of the Indian Penal Code.
F.I.R. of Dumra P.S. Case No.65 of
application.
5. That, it is stated that the son of the petitioner was not named in
the First Information Report rather the First Information Report was lodged
against Sunil Mandal and Ram Bali Mandal.
6. That, it is stated that during the course of investigation , the
name of the son of the petitioner was transpired in the present case.
7. That, it is stated that thereafter the police arrested the son of
the petitioner and remanded to the judicial custody.
8. That, it is stated that after the arrest of the son of the
petitioner , the petitioner filed an application before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi for separating the trial of the son of the
petitioner
-4-
and send the case to the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board ,
Sitamarhi ,since on the date of alleged occurrence , the son of the petitioner
was juvenile i.e. below 18 years.
9. That, it is stated that thereafter the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate , Sitamarhi vide his order dated 09.07.2009 separated the trial of
son of the petitioner and the case was sent to the court of learned Juvenile
Justice Board , Sitamarhi for assessment of age of son of the petitioner .
10. That, it is stated that in support of the age of son of the
petitioner , five witnesses were produced before the learned Juvenile
Justice Board and all of them deposed that the son of the petitioner was
born on 11.09.1991 and on the date of alleged occurrence he was below 18
years.
True photo stat/typed copies of the
application.
11. That, in support of age of the son of the petitioner documentary
evidences were produced before the learned Juvenile Justice Board such as
Janam Kundli , Registration , Marks-sheet , Admit Card of Matriculation
granted by the Bihar School Examination Board in which the age of son of
the petitioner was mentioned as 11.09.1991.
-5-
True photo stat copies of the Janam
Kundli , Registration , Marks-sheet ,
Admit Card of Matriculation are
application.
13. That, it is stated that on the order of the learned Juvenile
Justice Board a Medical Board was also constituted for assessment of age of
the son of the petitioner and accordingly the son of the petitioner appeared
before the Medical Board and Medical Board assessed the age of the son of
the petitioner around 20 years.
Report of the Medical Board is
disbelieved the evidence of witnesses as well as the documentary evidences
produced by the petitioner ,which is the essential proof/ evidence for
assessing the age of the son of the petitioner and only relied upon the report
of the Medical Board and the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide his
impugned order 16.01.2010 has been pleased to declare the petitioner as
major ( not juvenile).
-6-
application.
15. That, it is stated that in presence of the certificate of
Matriculation granted by the Board ,there is no necessity for assessment of
age to constitute the Medical Board but the learned Juvenile Justice Board
constitute the Medical Board and relied upon it and disbelieved the age
mentioned in the matriculation certificate.
16. That, it is stated that against the order of the learned Juvenile
Justice Board , Sitamarhi , the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi and registered as Cr. Appeal No.19 of
2010 / 01 of 2010 which was finally heard by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.1 ,Sitamarhi .
17. That, it is stated that learned Additional Sessions
Judge ,without considering the material available on record as also relied
upon the law involved in the case , has been pleased to dismiss the appeal
filed by the petitioner vide his order dated 31.03.2010 and confirm the order
passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi .
-7-
order dated 31.03.2010 passed by Sri Nand
Kishore Tiwary , the learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.1 , Sitamarhi
in Cr. Appeal No.19 of 2001/ 01 of 2010 and also
the order dated 16.01.2010 passed by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi in Gr. No.588 of
2009 ,Trial No.522 of 2009 arising out of Dumra
P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 ,the above named

GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned courts
below failed to appreciate that the son of the petitioner had appeared in the
Matriculation Examination and in the registration, admit card , marks-sheet
issued by the Bihar School Examination Board the age of the son of the
petitioner was mentioned as 11.09.1991 ,which is the consistent proof of
the age of the son of the petitioner .
III. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned courts
below failed to appreciate that the witnesses produced before the learned
Juvenile Justice Board consistently said that the son of the petitioner was
-8-
born on 11.09.1991 and on the date of occurrence the son of the petitioner
was minor i.e. below 18 years.
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Courts
failed to appreciate that in the evidence of witnesses as well as documentary
evidence there is no difference in between them ,therefore, there is no
occasion to constitute the Medical Board and rely upon the report of the
Medical Board.
V. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned courts
ought to have considered upon the report of the Medical Board who assessed
the age of son of the petitioner around 20 years and disbelieved the
certificates of Matriculation where the actual date of birth was mentioned as
11.09.1991 and the same is consistent proof of the age .
Nand Kishore Tiwary , the learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.1 , Sitamarhi
in Cr. Appeal No.19 of 2001/ 01 of 2010 and also
the order dated 16.01.2010 passed by the learned
-9-
Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi in Gr. No.588 of
2009 ,Trial No.522 of 2009 arising out of Dumra
P.S. Case No.65 of 2009.
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Umesh Sah, son of Asharfi Sah ,
Resident of village – Majhgama , P.S. Bairgania , District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Kiran Devi, wife of Umesh Sah ,
Presently residing at village- Fatahpur , P.S. Sonebarsa , District –
Sitamarhi.
To,
-2-
and order dated 11.01.2010 passed by Sri Harendra Nath Tiwary , the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in Matrimonial Case
been pleased to reject the petition filed by the for divorce from the Opposite-
party no.2.
that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Opposite-party no.2
in the month of Baisakh , 1997 at village-Fatahpur , P.S. Sonebarsa ,
District – Sitamarhi under the customary rights of Hindu and since then the
petitioner and the Opposite-party no.2 were living as the husband and wife.
4. That, it is stated that from the wedlock of the petitioner and
Opposite-party no.2 , one male issue was born namely Fekan Sah in the year
2005 .
5. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 had developed
illicit relation with one Ram Vinay Sah ,son of Late Biltu Sah , village-
-3-
Lohkhar, P.S. Sonebarsa , District – Sitamarhi , who happens to the brother-
in-law of the Opposite-party no.2.
6. That, it is stated that on 15.07.2005 ,the Opposite-party no.2 left
the house of the petitioner with her all belongings like ornaments ,clothes
etc. worth Rs.20,000/- and now lives with Ram Vinay Sah and she is living
in adultery with the aforesaid Vinay Sah.
7. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 in conspiracy with
the said Ram Vinay Sah is planning to commit the murder of the petitioner
and usurp the property of the petitioner .
8. That, it is stated that there was co-habitation of the petitioner
with Opposite-party no.2 more than seven years at village- Majhgama , P.S.
Bathnaha , District – Sitamarhi ,where the parties last resided permanently
and the Opposite-party no.2 from 15.07.2005 has been living separately in
village- Fatahpur , P.S. Sonebarsa , District – Sitamarhi with Ram Vinay
Sah.
9. That, it is stated that on the instigation of Ram Vinay Sah, the
Opposite-party no.2 filed a complaint case against the petitioner in the
court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,Sitamarhi for the offences
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code which was registered as
Complaint Case No.C-I-1097 of 2004 .

10. That, it is stated that after intervention of the well-wishers of
the parties ,the case was compromised between both the parties. After
-4-
compromise ,the Opposite-party no.2 resided with the petitioner for some
day and thereafter from 15.07.2005 ,the Opposite-party no.2 is residing in
village- Fatahpur ,P.S. Sonebarsa with Ram Vinay Sah , who is the brother –
in-law of the Opposite-party no.2.
11. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 has last co-
habitation with the petitioner on 14.07.2005 and thereafter she left the
house of the petitioner and began to live with her brother-in-law namely
Ram Vinay Sah and has been living in constant adultery with him as she fell
in his bad company at village- Fatahpur , P.S. Sonebarsa, District –
Sitamarhi.
12. That, it is stated that in spite of several efforts , the Opposite-
party no.2 is not ready to leave parting with Ram Vinay Sah ,therefore, the
petitioner had filed the divorce case against the Opposite-party no.2 which
was registered as Matrimonial Case No.04 of 2006.
13. That, it is stated that after institution of the divorce case, the
learned Family court issued a notice to the Opposite-party no.2 and after
service of notice the Opposite-party no.2 appeared in the case and filed her
written statement .
14. That, it is stated that after filing of the written statement , the
Opposite-party no.2 did not appear in the court and left the pairvi of the
case ,which shows that the Opposite-party no.2 has no interest in the case
since she has also no interest to live with the petitioner .
-5-
passed the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2010 ,whereby and
where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to reject the
application filed by the petitioner for divorce without considering the
material available on record .
Sri Harendra Nath Tiwary , the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in Matrimonial
Case No.4 of 2010 ,the above named petitioner
the other following
GROUNDS:
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.2 herself left
the petitioner and living adultery with Ram Vinay Sah .
III. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.2 did not
appear before the court after filing of the written statement .

IV. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.2 is living
-6-
with Ram Vinay Sah since 15.07.2005.
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.2 is not ready
to live with the petitioner .
set aside the judgment and order dated
11.01.2010 passed by Sri Harendra Nath Tiwary ,
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Sitamarhi in Matrimonial Case No.4 of 2010.
AND/OR
AND
dated 11.01.2010 may kindly be stayed.
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Ram Pravesh Singh , son of Late Dwarika Singh ,
Resident of village- Arna , P.S. Mashrakh, District – Saran at Chapra.
VERSUS

2. Sri Prabhunath Singh , son of Basudeo Singh @ Narad Singh ,
3. Sri Kedar Nath Singh @ Kedar Singh ,son of Basudeo Singh @ Narad
Singh
Both resident of village- Mashrakh , Barahiya Tola, P.S.
Mashrakh , District – Saran at Chapra.
4. Sri Dudh Nath Singh , son of Saryug Singh ,
5. Sri Lalan Singh , son of Gorakh Singh ,
-2-
Both resident of village- Mashrakh Gopalbari , P.S. Mashrakh,
District – Saran at Chapra.
6. Sri Dharm Nath Singh @ Dharmdeo Singh , son of
Resident of village- P.S.
District –
7. Sri Nand Kishore Pandey, son of
Resident of village- Majhar , P.S. Bhagwanpur Hatt, District –Siwan.
8. Sri Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ Bindeshwari Mahton , son of Saryug
Mahton , resident of village- Hanumanganj , P.S. Mashrakh , District –
Saran at Chapra.
9. Sri Harendra Singh ,son of Ram Nigah Singh ,
Resident of village – Dhenuki , P.S. Panapur ,District – Saran at Chapra.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri Dipak Mishra , the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
1. That, the present revision application on behalf of the
petitioner above named is directed against the judgment and order dated
-3-
19.12.2008 passed by Sri Manmohan Chaudhary the learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.III, Patna in Sessions Trial No.1557 of
2007 / 110 of 2007 , whereby and where under the learned Additional
Sessions Judge was pleased to pass an order of acquittal in favour of the
Opposite-party nos. 2 to 9 notwithstanding the availability of sufficient
material on record to bring the charges whom to the Opposite-party nos. 2
to 9.
3. That, the prosecution case in short interalia is that on
07.03.1992 when the informant( petitioner herein ) along with his brother
Raj Narayan Singh @ Raju Singh ( deceased ) , Kishori Rai ( deceased ) ,
Parmalik Singh , Satya Narayan Singh , Birendra Singh and Bachcha Singh
were engaged in preparation of welcome of Chief Minister , at Mashrakh

Petrol Pump , North of Hanuman Ji temple at Taxi Stand at about 11.30
A.M. Basudeo Singh @ Narad Ji , Prabhunath Singh , Kedar Sigh and
Harendra Singh came with a red colour Bullet Motor Cycle bearing Reg.
No.BED-2221 .
Besides them Bindeshwari Prasad , Arjun Singh ( bodyguard of
Prabhu Nath Singh ) , Lalan Singh , Dudh Nath Singh , Nand Kishore
Pandey and four others ,whom the informant claimed to identify from
face ,reached there armed with Riffle and Revolver.
-4-
The informant further stated that the accused Basudeo Singh
instigated other accused persons to kill Raju which would consequently end
the Drama ,whereupon accused Prabhu Nath Singh fired from his
Revolver , causing injury on temporal region of Raju Singh and he fell
down.
The informant further stated that Arjun Singh and Dharm Nath
Singh also fired at Raju Singh , causing injury on chest and other parts of the
body . It was also stated that Kedar Singh fired at Kishori Rai ,who was the
private bodyguard of Raju Singh , causing injury over his head and when he
fell down Harendra Singh , Bindeshwari Prasad , Lalan Singh , Dudh Nath
Singh and Nand Kishore Pandey opened fire indiscriminately .
It was also stated that in the aforesaid occurrence of firing one
Krishna Rastogi of Mashrakh also sustained injury and due to fear the
informant and others in order to save them fled away from the place of
occurrence , Raj Narain Singh and Kishori Rai died on spot. The motive
behind the occurrence was said to be the Chief Minister Program organized
at Mashrakh by the deceased persons and that Raju Singh was a witness in
the case filed by Ajay Singh against the accused persons .
4. That, on the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan of the informant ,
Mashrakh P.S. Case No.26 of 1992 dated 07.03.1992 for the offences Under
Sections 147 , 148,149, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27
of the Arms Act was instituted in Mashrakh Police- Station against 10
named accused persons including the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 9.
-5-
5. That, after investigation , police submitted charge-sheet against only
nine accused persons including the petitioner nos. 2 to 9 and one Arjun
Sigh , whereas it submitted final report against Basudeo Singh ,the father of
the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3.
6. That, after submission of the charge-sheet ,cognizance was
taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions . Since accused
Arjun Singh was killed some where ,therefore, the case was committed for
trail only in respect of Opposite-party nos. 2 to 9 . Charges were framed and
the accused persons were summoned to face trial.
7. That, this case has got a chequered history but the petitioner is
not required to bring all these facts on record ,suffice would be state that
considering the influence of Opposite-party no.2 in the District and has
association with hard core criminal ,since it was difficult of the District
Administration of Saran to conduct trial of the cases pending against
Opposite-party no.2 and his men at Chapra ,the District Magistrate Saran
had made a request from the State Government for transfer of the cases
pending against the Opposite-party no.2 and his men for trial to some other
Sessions Division .
8. That, at the instance of the State ,the matter was brought to the
notice of this Hon'ble Court and the orders of this Hon'ble Court ,different
Sessions Trial pending against the Opposite-party no.2 and his men at
Sessions Division, Saran were transferred for trial to the Sessions
Division ,
-6-
Hazaribag . After the records were transfer when the Opposite-parties were
summoned by the learned trial court, the Opposite-party no.2 used his
influence and did not follow the learned trial court at Hazaribag to
proceed with the trial on some pretext or the other .
9. That, in the mean time there was division of the State of Bihar
and according to the Re-Organization Act, Sessions Division had fallen
under the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand State .
10. That, since there was no sufficient progress in trial at Hazaribag
, under the orders of this Hon'ble Court ,the present Sessions Trial and other
cases also were transferred from Hazaribag to Bhagalpur for the purposes of
trial and after receipt of the record from Hazaribag in the year 2002 the
Sessions Court at Bhagalpur issued summons to the accused persons to face
trial.
11. That, even at Bhagalpur ,the Opposite-party no.2 was
exercising his influence to delay the trial in which he had succeeded to
great extent and did not allow the court to proceed in the matter till 2006.
12. That, after the process was complete ,prosecution was directed
to produce its witnesses for examination and thereafter on behalf of the
prosecution 19 witnesses were examined.
13. That, it is relevant to state that in the year 2004 , the Opposite-
party no.2 was elected as a Member of Parliament from Maharajganj
Parliamentary Constituency as a candidate of Janta Dal ( United) Political
-7-
Party. In the year 2005 when general elections were held for constitution of
14th Bihar Legislative Assembly , a coalition Government led by Janta Dal
United Political Party was formed in the State of Bihar . Since the Opposite-
party no.2 was sitting Member of Parliament of the party and he was
claiming leadership of a particular group of citizen , he was in a capacity to
influence the State Government , consequently the entire District
Administration of Saran was dancing in the tune of the Opposite-party no.2
and were engaged to manage the witnesses likely to depose against the
Opposite-party no.2 and his men .
14. That, it is stated that since five different Sessions Trial were
pending against the Opposite-party no.2 and his men at

Bhagalpur ,therefore, at the instance of Opposite-party no.2 ,one Shiv
Narayan Jha was appointed as the Public Prosecutor Bhagalpur . Since the
very beginning of trial the conduct of said Public Prosecutor was since
found against the interest of prosecution , petitions were filed by the
informant before the State Government for change of Public Prosecutor .
Since the Opposite-party no.2 was an influential person , the application of
the petitioner filed before different Authorities remain unattended .
True photo stat copies of application
filed by the petitioner for change of
Public Prosecutors are annexed
-8-
ANNEXURE- “1” series for
application.
15. That, it is stated that the Public Prosecutor was interested to
close the evidence of the prosecution side after the examination of only
those witnesses , who were gained over by the Opposite-parties and
whenever the petitioner went to the Public Prosecutor along with the
witnesses ,who were to support the prosecution case, the Public Prosecutor
did not produce them for evidence for some reason or the other and they
were compelled to go back without deposition.

16. That, it is stated that the petitioner engaged a private lawyer
for himself and when a petition was filed before the learned trial court to
allow the informant to prosecute his case through a private lawyer , the
learned trial court too refused such permission to the informant .
17. That, some how or the other 19 witnesses were examined on
behalf of the prosecution out of which the petitioner was examined as
P.W.12 and had supported the case of prosecution as spelt out in the
Fardbeyan .
deposition of the petitioner P.W.12 is
-9-
18. That, one Arun Kumar Tiwari Police Inspector ,Crime
Investigation Department was examined as P.W.14 ,who admitted in
paragraph no.2 of his evidence that during the course of investigation he
had recorded the statement of Ram Pravesh Singh ( informant ) , Krishna
Rastogi , who had also sustained injuries in the said occurrence , Mahadeo
Prasad , Vijay Prasad , Vidya Prasad , Ramdeo Prasad ,Rajeshwar Pandey ,
Satyadeo Prasad , Hari Madhav Singh , Ashok Singh and others . A perusal
of the statement of the aforesaid witnesses , as recorded under Section -161

of the Code of Criminal Procedure would show that during the course of
investigation though they have fully supported the case of the prosecution
but since most of them were gained over by the accused persons ,they did
not support the prosecution case when they were examined as witness before
the court.
19. That, one Kameshwar Singh was examined as P.W.19 and he
had also supported the case of prosecution .
deposition of P.W.19 is annexed
-10-
20. That, the Officer-in-Charge of Mashrakh Police- Station
namely Sri Kant Rai ,who had instituted the case and had recorded the
Fardbeyan of the informant was examined as P.W.17 . He also admitted
that he had recorded the Fardbeyan and further statement of the informant
during the course of investigation . He had also admitted that he had
recorded the statement of Arun Kumar Singh , Munna Singh ,Bachcha Singh
, Pawan Kumar , Krishna Rastogi , Satya Narain Singh , Dhirendra Singh ,
Ram Bilas Singh , Jata Sah , Mahesh Sharma , Binod Kumar, Jamadar
Mahto , Satyendra Singh and others during the course of investigation. A
perusal of the statement of those witnesses recorded under Section -161 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure would show that at that point of time they
had fully supported the case of prosecution but since they were gained over
by the Opposite-parties ,they turned hostile during the course of trial.
21. That, it is stated that since the learned Public Prosecutor was
also in connivance with the accused persons , he had not even drawn the
attendance of the witnesses towards their statement recorded in the case-
diary. Informant was not allowed to engage a private lawyer to conduct his
case.
22. That, it is stated that noticing the activities of the Opposite-
party no.2 and his men , to gain over the witnesses ,some how or the other
and when they went to extent of assault to the witnesses in the Court Room
at Bhagalpur in the presence of the Presiding Officer of the court and the
-11-
administration as also the conduct of learned trial court and Public
Prosecutor , Sessions Trial No.19 of 2003 pending in the court of learned 7 th
Additional Sessions Judge , Bhagalpur was directed to be transferred for
trial from Bhagalpur to Patna after hearing the parties on a Habeas Corpus
application filed by one Harendra Rai ,the brother of deceased Rajendra Rai,
who was also killed by the Opposite-party no.2 and his men .
dated 13.03.2007 passed in
Cr.W.J.C.No.717 of 2006 is annexed

23. That, since the attitude of the learned trial court seissigned
with the present case was also doubtful , Cr. Misc. No.13454 of 2007 was
filed by the petitioner for transfer of this case also from Bhagalpur to Patna
for trial.
24. That, the aforesaid case filed by the petitioner was heard with
other matters by a bench of this Hon'ble Court and vide order dated
10.08.2007 , a bench of this Hon'ble Court was pleased to transfer all other
four cases pending against the Opposite-party no.2 and his men pending at
Bhagalpur for trial at Patna.
-12-
dated 10.08.2007 passed in Cr. Misc.
25. That, after receipt of the records and as per direction of this
Hon'ble Court ,vide aforesaid order dated 10.08.2007 , the records of the
present trial was also transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,
Fast Track Court No.3 , Patna for trial, where Sessions Trial No.19 of 2003
was pending . At that point of time one Sri K.K. Sinha was the Presiding
Officer of the said court.
26. That, after the transfer of the above noted trials against the
Opposite-party no.2 and his men to Patna Sessions Division , the State
Government had appointed one Rakesh Kumar Sinha as the Special Public
Prosecutor to conduct the pending trial against the Opposite-party no.2 and
his men pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast
Track Court No.3, Patna.
27. That, the said Special Public Prosecutor Sri Rakesh Kumar
Sinha was not even eligible to be appointed as the Special Public Prosecutor
in view of the provisions contained in Section -24(8) of the Code of
-13-
Criminal Procedure 1973 since he had not sufficient length of practice of 10
years as provided under the Code.
Notification of the Law Department
under memo no.4398 dated
application.
28. That, it is stated that Sri Sinha was enrolled as an Advocate at
the roll of the Bihar State Bar Council on 13.11.1998 and thus less than 10
years of length of practice on 25.07.2007.
29. That, after the appointment of Sri Rakesh Kumar ,the
informant approached him to file application under Section 311 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for recording the evidence of material witnesses , who
were not examined at Bhagalpur either because summons were not served to
them or because they were not produced by the learned Public Prosecutor
for evidence , the Special Public Prosecutor refused to file any petition in
this regard.
30. That, under the circumstances , one Awadhesh Kumar Singh @
Munna Singh engaged a private lawyer and filed a petition on his behalf
before the learned trial court on 27.06.2008 with a prayer to record his
-14-
evidence since he is an important witness of the case and had singed the
seizure list.
31. That, though the application was filed to support the
prosecution case but the learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the
application and submitted before the learned trial court that there is no merit
in the petition and it should be rejected . The learned trial court rejected the
petition vide order dated 01.09.2008.

learned Trial in Sessions Trial
No.1557 of 2007 is annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE- “7”
for identification forming part of this
application.
32. That, the said order of the learned trial court was challenged by
one Awadhesh Kumar Singh before this Hon'ble Court by filing Cr. Misc.
No.47619 of 208 . After hearing the parties , a bench of this Hon'ble Court
stayed the proceedings before the learned trial court . On the next day of
stay granted by this Hon'ble Court , the case was mentioned on behalf of the
State and the instance of the State ,the case was again listed under the
heading to be mentioned when a prayer was made on behalf of the State to
dismiss the said application on the ground that it has been filed to delay the
-15-
trial . The order was deserved and it was delivered on 19.12.2008 when the
said Criminal Miscellaneous application was dismissed.
dated 17.12.2008, 18.12.2008 and
19.12.2008 passed by the learned
Trial in Sessions Trial No.1557 of
as ANNEXURE- “8” for

application.
33. That, it is stated that on 19.12.2008, the aforesaid Cr. Misc.
No.47619 of 2008 in which stay was granted on 17.12.2008 was dismissed
an on certificate being produced to this , the learned trial court pronounced
the judgment and acquitted the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 9.
Sri Manmohan Chaudhary the learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. III, Patna in
Sessions Trial No.1557 of 2007 / 110 of 2007, the
following
-16-
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the part of the impugned judgment and order is bad in
law as well as on facts.
II. For that , the Prosecutor State had miserably failed to conduct
a free and fair trial of the case because the Opposite-party no.2 was non-else
but a sitting Member of Parliament of the Ruling Party and ,therefore, the
State was instrumental to secure his acquittal .

III. For that , serious infirmities were committed by the court in the
presence of the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State but there
was no protest on behalf of the Public Prosecutor and whenever attempt was
made by the petitioner to raise the protest , it was opposed by the Prosecutor
State.
IV. For that, the important witnesses were driven away by the
learned Public Prosecutor at Bhagalpur when they had approached for their
evidence and they were not being examined before the court ,unless and
until permission was granted by the accused persons to get them examine .
Thus opportunity was granted to the accused persons to gain over the
witnesses.
V. For that, while recording the order of acquittal in favour of
Opposite-party nos. 2 to 9 ,the learned trial court failed to appreciate that at
least two Prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.nos.12 and 19 have fully supported
the prosecution case , sufficient for conviction of the accused persons.
-17-
VI. For that, while passing the impugned judgment ,the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that even the police Officers have stated in
their deposition that they had recorded the statement of witnesses under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if that would have been
referred to for the lapses of consideration of the guilt of the Opposite-
parties and the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the witnesses
were gained over , order of acquittal would not have been recorded in the
case.
VII. For that, during the course of trial ,the learned trial court was
informed that the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor has been
made contrary to the provisions of Section -24(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and ,therefore, an incompetent person cannot be permitted to
conduct the trial , the learned trial court overlooked the serious infirmity
on behalf of the Prosecutor State in order to support the Opposite-parties.
VIII. For that, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial
court is contrary to the evidence available on record.
IX. For that, on consideration of the judgment of acquittal recorded
by the learned trial court in different cases against the Opposite-party no.2
and his men ,the State was directed to file revision application against the
judgment and order passed by the same Presiding Officer in favour of the
Opposite-party no.2 and his men .
-18-
X. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .

pleased to set aside the judgment and order dated
19.12.2008 passed by Sri Manmohan Chaudhary,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast
Track Court No.III, Patna in Sessions Trial
No.1557 of 2007 / 110 of 2007 and convict the
Opposite-party nos. 2 to 9 for the charges leveled
against them .
AND/OR
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.

Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Pramod Singh , son of Late Yogendra Prasad Singh ,
Resident of village- Athri , P.S. Runnisaidpur , District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Sanjay Singh, son of Raj Kishore Singh ,
Resident of village- Sauli, P.S. Tariyani ,District – Sheohar.
3. Tuntun Mishra, son of Sri Ram Mishra,
Resident of village- Machi, P.S. Belsand ,District – Sitamarhi.
4. Nawal Kishore Sahani, son of Suraj Prasad Sahani,
Resident of village- Athkauni , P.S. Tariyani ,District – Sheohar.
-2-
To,
The Hon’ble Shri Dipak Mishra , the Hon’ble Chief Justice of

judgment dated 23.12.2009 and order dated 24.12.2009 so far it relates to
the Opposite-party nos. 2,3 and 4 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey ,
learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. III Sitamarhi in
Sessions Trial No.270 of 2007/ 166 of 2008 arising out of Runnisaidpur
P.S. Case No.163 of 2006 , G.R.No.1345 of 2006 registered for the
offences under Sections 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code , whereby and
where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to
acquit the Opposite-party nos.2 ,3 and 4 from the aforesaid charges
leveled against them on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts against the Opposite-
party nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Court earlier against the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2009 and order
dated 24.12.2009.
-3-
Report in brief is that the informant Pramod Singh ( P.W.8) submitted his
written report before the Officer-in-Charge of Runnisaidpur Police – Station
on 23.07.2006 , stating therein that victim Baliram Singh ( P.W.7) went to

attend the meeting of Teachers Association at Sitamarhi by his Scooter
Bajaj Chetak bearing registration no.BR-06E-1587 at 12 A.M. on
22.07.2006 and he stayed at Petrol Pump situated nearby village- Thakur
while returning from Sitamarhi at 7.20 P.M. due to fill up petrol in the
Scooter and he proceeded to his home but he could not reach home . The
informant further said he and other were waited Baliram Singh till late
night .The informant further said that he traced him and he came to know
that accused Ajay Kumar resident of Sheohar and Pintu Singh resident of
village- Khansan under Riga Police- Station were seen moving at about 7
P.M. by Sumo Vita of while colour along with unknown persons . The
informant further said that both the aforesaid persons committed several
incidents of abduction and the informant suspected that aforesaid two
persons abducted victim Baliram Singh .
4. That, it is stated that after institution of the police proceeded
with the investigation and during the course of investigation the police
recorded the statement of so many independent witnesses in the case –
diary ,who supported the prosecution version .
-4-
statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure by the learned Magistrate and the Test Identification

Parade has also been conducted by the police in which the victim P.W.7
identified the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 .
the Investigating Officer , the Police submitted charge-sheet against six
named accused persons including the Opposite-party no. 2,3 and 4 under
Sections 364(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code .
against all the accused persons including the Opposite-party nos. 2, 3 and
4 also under the same Section after going through the material available in
the case-diary .
8. That, it is stated that after taking cognizance , the case was
committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 14.05.2007 for its
disposal and the charges were framed against all the accused persons
including the Opposite-party nos. 2 , 3 and 4 under Sections 364(A)/ 34 of
P.W.1 : Manish Kumar
-5-
P.W.2 :Krishna Kumar
P.W.3 : Ganga Prasad
P.W.4 : Yugal Kishore Sah

P.W.5 : Bhupendra Narayan Singh
P.W.6 : Bajrangi Prasad Singh
P.W.7 : Baliram Singh , victim of the case
P.W.8 : Pramod Singh ,informant
P.W.9 : Navin Kumar
P.W.10 : Keshav Kumar
P.W.11. :Satyendra Ram ,Investigating Officer of the case
P.W.12 : Ashok Kumar Gupta , learned Judicial Magistrate , who
conducted Test Identification Parade.
P.W.13 :Ram Bihari Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate , who
conducted Test Identification Parade.
P.W.14 :Ganesh Chaudhary
P.W.15 :Ram Bilash Mahto
Ext.1 :Signature of Ganga Prasad Singh on seizure list
Ext.2 :Signature of Baliram Singh on the statement recorded under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Ext.3 :Fardbeyan
-6-
Ext.3/1 :Signature of Satyendra Ram on Fardbeyan .
Ext.4 : Form First Information Report .
Ext.5 & 6 :Seizure List

Ext.7 & 7/1 : T.I. Chart prepared by P.W.12 and 13 respectively.
Ext. 8 :The statement of Baliram Singh recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C.
11. That, it is stated that all the prosecution witnesses examined on
behalf of the prosecution had fully supported the prosecution case .
12. That, it is stated that P.W.4 in his evidence before the learned
trial court specifically said that the accused Pintu Chaudhary , Keshav
Chaudhary ,Sanjay Singh ( Opposite-party no.2) were moving there .
13. That, it is stated that P.W.6 victim in his evidence before the
learned trial court specifically said that Keshav Chaudhary indicated him ,
Tuntun Mishra ((Opposite-party no.3) had driven the Motorcycle having
pistol in their hand . He also said that he identified the accused Rajan
Singh , Ajay Singh , Madhvendra Singh and Tuntun Mishra ( Opposite-party
no.3) . He also said in his evidence that accused Tuntun Mishra ( Opposite-
party no.3) took out Rs.60,000/- from the Dicky of his Scooter and
kidnapped him and demanded for ransom .
14. That, it is stated that in his evidence P.W.7 victim also deposed
that after releasing from the custody of the accused persons ,during the
course of investigation he had visited along with the police personnel and he
-7-
identified the house of Tuntun Mishra (Opposite-party no.3) and Sanjay
Singh (Opposite-party no.2),where the accused persons kept him under
confinement for four days after his kidnapping .

15. That, it is stated that the P.W.11 Investigating Officer of the
case in his evidence said that the victim P.W.7 identified the house of
Sanjay Singh (Opposite-party no.2) , Ajay Singh , Sunil Singh , where the
victim was kept by the accused persons. He also in his evidence said that the
victim P.W.7 identified the Tuntun Mishra ( Opposite-party no.3) and Rajan
Singh in Test Identification Parade.
16. That, it is stated that the P.W.12 ,who conducted the Test
Identification Parade in his evidence before the learned trail court
supported the Test Identification Parade conducted by him.
17. That, it is stated that the P.W.13 , who conducted the Test
Identification Parade in his evidence before the learned trial court said that
in the test identification parade , the victim identified the accused Sanjay
Singh (Opposite-party No.2 ) and Tuntun Mishra ( Opposite-party no.3).
18. That, from perusal of the deposition of the witnesses of the
case, it is apparent that in the abduction of the victim P.W.7 ,the Opposite-
party nos.2 ,3and 4 are the vital roll and in their houses the victim was
confined .
consideration ,the consistent evidence of the P.W. 4,7,11, 12 and 13 who
-8-
specifically said that the Opposite-party nos. 2,3 and 4 are the vital roll in
kidnapping of the victim , acquitted the Opposite-party nos. 2,3 and 4 from
the charges.
Opposite-party nos. 2 ,3 and 4 only on the ground that the victim did not
give their name in his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure but the learned trail court failed to consider that the victim did
not give their name in his statement under Section -164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure at the time of recording his statement so that he was
very afraid since his statement was recorded just after releasing from the
custody of the kidnappers.
of judgment dated 23.12.2009 and order dated
24.12.2009 so far it relates to the Opposite-party
nos. 2,3 and 4 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad
Pandey , learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast
Track Court No.III Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial
No.270 of 2007/ 166 of 2008 , the above named
GROUNDS:
-9-
I. For that, the part of the impugned judgment dated23.12.2009
and order dated 24.04.2009 is bad in law as well as on facts.

II. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 , 3 and 4 ,
specifically said that the Opposite-party nos. 3 had driven the Motorcycle
having armed with pistol in their hand at the time of kidnapping and he had
also snatched Rs.60,000/- from the Scooter of Dicky of the appellant.
III. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 , 3 and
4 , the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.7 in his evidence
specifically said that he was confined in the house of Opposite-party nos. 2
and 3 and during the course of police investigation he identified the houses
of Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 .
IV. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 , 3 and 4 ,
specifically said that he identified the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 in Test
Identification Parade which was also supported by P.W.12 and 13 in his
evidence ,who conducted the Test Identification Parade .
V. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 , 3 and 4 ,
the learned trial court failed to appreciate that in his evidence the P.W.11
Investigating Officer of the case supported the identification of the house of
Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 by the P.W.7 where P.W.7 was confined after
his kidnapping .
-10-
VI. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 , 3 and 4 ,
specifically said that Opposite-party no.2 and others are moving around at
the time of kidnapping of the victim P.W.7.
VII. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 , 3 and 4 ,
the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.7 identified the
Opposite-party nos.2 , 3 and 4 in the Dock of the Court.
VIII. For that, while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2, 3 and 4 ,the
learned trial court ought to have consider that P.W.7 did not given the name
of the Opposite-party nos.2, 3 and 4 in his statement under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate but he failed
to consider that the statement of the victim was recorded just after releasing
from the custody of the kidnappers and at that relevant time he was very
afraid and he has not been position to say anything .
IX. For that , the learned trial failed to consider the material
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party nos. 2 ,3 and 4 from
the charges leveled against them .
X. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
well as involvement of Opposite-party nos.2, 3 and 4 in the said offence .
XI. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
-11-
pleased to set
aside the part of the judgment dated 23.12.2009
and order dated 24.12.2009 so far it relates to the
Opposite-party nos. 2,3 and 4 passed by Sri
Surendra Prasad Pandey , learned Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. III
2008 and convict the Opposite-party nos. 2 , 3 and
4 for the charges leveled against them .
AND/OR

(PETITIONER IN JAIL)
I.A.No.(Crl.)____________________/ OF 2010.
IN
CR. REVISION NO._____246_____________/OF 2010.
Procedure ;
AN D
In the matter of:-
Suresh Chaudhary …………….…………..…………… PETITIONER.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar ………….... ….……….………OPPOSITE-PARTY.
To,
the High Court of Judicature at Patna and His Lordship and
His Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble High Court.
-2-
the petitioner above named ;

1. That, this interlocutory application on behalf of petitioner
above named is for his release on bail during the pendency of the present
revision application .
2. That, it is stated that in the main application of criminal
revision application ,the petitioner has not made a prayer for bail ,therefore,
the instant application is being filed .
3. That, it is stated that the instant revision application is directed
against the judgment and order dated 7 th Day of December , 2009 passed
by Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey , the learned 9 th Additional Sessions Judge ,
Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal no. 86 of 2006 , whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the criminal
appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated
13th July ,2006 passed by Sri Tribhuwan Nath , the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Trial No.1087 of 2006 with a certain
modification that the period of two years of conviction reduced to 18 months
, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class has been pleased to
convict the petitioner and one another to undergo R.I. for two years
Under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.2,000/.
-3-
4. That, it is stated that during the pendency of the appeal , the
petitioner was on bail and after passing the impugned order by the learned
appellate court ,the petitioner could not surrender before the learned court
below and without surrendering before the learned trial court filed the
instant criminal revision application ,therefore, the Stamp Reporter pointed
out a defect for submission of surrender slip.
5. That, it is stated that after pointing out the defect, the
petitioner surrendered before the learned trial court on 16.02.2010 and
attached the surrender slip with the main criminal revision application and
accordingly the case was registered and listed before the Bench of this
Hon'ble Court.
6. That, it is stated that serious discrepancies in between the
evidence of the witnesses as well as the First Information Report and the
prosecution has failed to establish the case ,therefore, the petitioner deserves
to be released on bail.
It is ,therefore, most humbly prayed that Your

Lordships may graciously be pleased to enlarge the
petitioner on bail and stay the payment of fine
during the pendency of criminal revision
application in Trial No.1087 of 2006 to
the satisfaction of Sri Tribhuwan Nath , the
-4-
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur
or his successor court.
AND / O R
circumstances of the case .
And for this , the petitioner shall ever pray.

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Sanjiv Sharma @ Sanjiv Kumar , son of Ramchandra Prasad Sharma ,
Resident of village- Charaun , P.S. Muffasil , District – Munger.
……………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
2. Sunita Devi, wife of Awadh Narayan Sharma ,
Resident of village- Charaun , P.S. Muffasil , District – Munger.
………………………..………OPPOSITE –PARTIES.
To,
-2-

dated 19.01.2010 passed by learned Sri Madhusudan Prasad Sharma ,
Sessions Judge ,Munger in Criminal Revision No.133 of 2009 , whereby
and where under the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate , Munger in Muffasil P.S. case No. 63 of 2008 ,by
which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger has accepted the
Final Report and discharge the petitioner from the case , was set aside and
the matter was remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,
Munger to re-consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Court earlier against the impugned order .
Report is described here under for adjudication by this Hon'ble Court . The
prosecution case , in brief is that the informant namely Sunita Devi gave her
Fardbeyan before the Police Officials on 22.03.2008 at about 5 P.M. stating
therein that on the same day at about 4 P.M. when the informant was sitting
in her house then six (6) named accused persons including the petitioner
armed with various weapons Lathi, Danda, piece of brick and stone and by
-3-
abusing said to transfer the land forcibly upon which the husband of the
informant denied to transfer the said land and accordingly Sanjay Sharma ,
Niranjan Sharma and Sanjeev Sharma opened fire indiscriminately with

their guns and rest of the accused persons started brick batting and
consequently the son of the informant namely Ranjit Sharma, who was
sitting in the courtyard sustained bullet injury and having seen his injured
son, the husband of the informant as well as other persons mentioned in the
First Information Report protested to do so then they were also assaulted
with gun shot , lathi and piece of brick and stone and consequently they
have also sustained injury and thereafter the informant and others started to
hide themselves in their house to save themselves , thereafter the accused
persons continuously opened fire and brick batting . The son of the
informant died on the spot . It is further alleged that the Sanjay Sharma ,
Niranjan Sharma, Rajiv Sharma and Sanjiv Sharma all are in police service
had come in their native house and Ram Chandra Sharma as well as Sri
Niwas Sharma live at their home . The land of the informant situated at the
North Boundary of the house of the petitioner and they wanted to get
transfer the said land . The other persons have seen the occurrence and
informed the police through mobile and police came at the place of
occurrence immediately after information. Some injured persons went to
Sadar Hospital Munger for their treatment . The cause behind the occurrence
-4-
is land dispute and all the accused persons committed such offence and
accordingly the Fardbeyan was recorded and the First Information Report
was lodged.
copy of the F.I.R. of Muffasil P.S.
Case No.63 of 2008 is annexed hereto
and marked as ANNEXURE-“1”to
this petition.
4. That, the petitioner has been made accused by way of falsely
implication by the prosecution party /informant . The petitioner is no where
in the episode of this occurrence, rather he was present on his duty at
Andaman and Nikobar Island being a Solider in Indian Army and his
number is 13622495P LNK . The informant has given Fardbeyan in which
it is alleged that all the accused persons named in the First Information
Report came and opened indiscriminate firing including this petitioner
along with Niranjan and Sanjay having armed with gun and rest of the
accused started brick batting and one Ranjit Sharma sustained gun shot
injury. In the First Information Report ,the allegation of firing against three
accused persons including this petitioner and the Post-Mortem Report goes
to show there is one gun shot injury and a small pilot was received and the
gun shot has scattered and due to which there are three fire arm injury and
cause of death opined by the doctor due to fire arm as well as Head Injury
-5-
which is lacerated wound and it seems to be caused by hard and blunt
substance such as piece of stones and bricks. Meaning thereby there is
only one fire opened by one of the accused persons but the Fardbeyan of the
informant was drawn in exaggerated manner by the prosecution party and
simply the informant put her signature on the Fardbeyan itself . In this way
the prosecution party deliberately dragged the name of entire family
members including the all service holders.
5. That, during the course of investigation ,it has come that the
petitioner was on duty and when he came to know about his accusation then
he reported to his Authority and accordingly a letter dated 21.06.2008 was
sent to the Superintendent of Police ,Munger , Deputy Superintendent of
Police , Munger and Officer-in-Charge , Muffasil Police- Station by the
Lieutenant Coronal ( Major Captain) ,21 , Bihar (Maurya ) C/O 99 APO in
which it has been categorically mentioned that on the date of
occurrence ,the petitioner was working at Andaman and Nikobar Island
and he was discharging his duty in the Unit at a field firing and not in the
village during the time of occurrence. Apart from this the Investigating
Officer verified and he came at conclusion that he was not present at the
place of occurrence and he submitted Final Form by declaring him innocent
and the same has been accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,
Munger vide order dated 30.03.2009 . Not even only the plea of alibi is
bonafide and it can be looked into at any stage of the proceeding.
-6-
copies of the letter dated 21.06.2008
and Charge-sheet No.266 of 2008 are

annexed hereto and marked as
ANNEXURE-“2” & “2A”to this
petition .
6. That, there is enmity between the parties and prior to lodging
the instant case ,a First Information Report was lodged earlier by the father
of the petitioner bearing Muffasil P.S. Case No.41 of 2008 in which the
husband of the informant as well as her son have been made accused for the
offence under Sections 447, 385,34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27
of the Arms Act for demand of Rangdari . The aforesaid case lodged by the
father of the petitioner is going on and the process was initiated against the
accused persons . The instant case is the counter blast of Muffasil P.S. Case
N.41 of 2008 lodged by the father of the petitioner .
copy of the F.I.R. of Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 41 of 2008 is annexed
hereto and marked as
ANNEXURE-“3”to this petition.
7. That, the learned Sessions Judge , Munger has wrongly opined
his view that the plea of alibi cannot be taken at this stage rather it should
be
-7-
placed when the accused enter into the defense after the prosecution
establishes is case showing the accused in the commission of the offence .

It is very much wrong to say that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
accepted the final report by discussing the alibi of the petitioner on the
contrary there is ample power to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
upon receiving a Police Report such facts or upon information received from
any person other than the Police Officer or upon on his own knowledge and
when it is found that the facts or material on record does not constitutes the
offence then he has ample power to accept the final report submitted by the
police and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly passed the
order dated 30.03.2009 by which he exonerated the petitioner from the
present case . It is also relevant to mention that the plea of alibi has been
proved by the official letter communicated in between the officials of police
concerned and it is also very much impossible for the petitioner to
participate in the occurrence when he was discharging his duty at the ends
of India such as Andaman and Nikobar Island.
8. That, the learned Sessions Judge has committed a serious error
in perusing the report meticulously and said after lodging the First
Information Report some months after the plea of alibi was taken and the
certificate of Commanding Officer was also filed to show that on the date of
occurrence the petitioner was else where and the Investigating Officer
accepted the same .On the contrary when the petitioner was at Andaman
-8-
and Nikobar Island and when he came to know about the accusation by his
family members and ,thereafter he reported to his authority .In this way
there is no any latches on the part of the petitioner as well as his officials.
9. That, it is also wrong to say that the plea of alibi should be
raised after the adducement of evidence by the prosecution party . If there is
any evidence or documents which goes to show the innocence of the
petitioner then it is an abuse of process to proceed with this case such a
long period. The documents which was communicated by the Lieutenant
Coronal to the Police Officials with regard to the petitioner was not present
at the time of occurrence and the same was approved by the Police
Officials . Apart from this the First Information Report is not the
evidence ,rather it is a part of allegation and the same has to be tested as per
the evidence or document collected in the records of the case and as per the
documentary evidence there is ample chance for acquittal of the petitioner
then it should be looked into as earliest . In this way the impugned order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge is quite non-application of mind as
well as it is quite illegal in the eye of law.
dated 19.01.2010 passed by learned Sri
Madhusudan Prasad Sharma , Sessions Judge
-9-
,Munger in Criminal Revision No.133 of
this
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge , Munger is bad in law as well as on facts.
II. For that, the learned Sessions Judge ,Munger did not apply his
mind with regard to plea of alibi which is quite approved by the
Investigating Agency as per the documentary evidence.
III. For that, the learned Sessions Judge , Munger did not
appreciate the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the
course of investigation such as the statement of witnesses , Post- Mortem
Report and the manner of the occurrence.
IV. For that, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly
exonerated the petitioner from the charges leveled against him but the
learned Sessions Judge wrongly set aside the order dated 30.03.2009
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger.
V. For that, the learned Sessions Judge , Munger did not apply his
mind as well as did not examine the records of the proceeding meticulously
and he failed to appreciate the correctness , legality of any findings and

-10-
passed the order impugned without any rhyme and reason ,which is quite
illegal and beyond the Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
VI. For that, the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly passed the
impugned order by setting aside the order of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate , Munger on 30.03.2009 which is quite illegal in the eye of
law ,which is fit to be set aside.
set aside the order dated 19.01.2010 passed by
learned Sri Madhusudan Prasad Sharma , Sessions
Judge ,Munger in Criminal Revision No.133 of
2009 and confirm the order dated 30.03.2009
passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate ,Munger passed in Muffasil P.S. Case
No.63 of 2008 ,so far it relates to the petitioner .
AND/OR

-11-
AND
19.01.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge ,
Munger and further proceeding of the learned
court below may kindly be stayed.

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Baiju Rai, son of Ram Nandan Rai,
Resident of village- Pathrahi , P.S. Bajpatti , District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Manvi Devi, daughter of Lal Babu Rai, wife of Baiju Rai ,
Resident of village- Pathrahi Tola , P.S. Bajpatti, District – Sitamarhi,
presently residing at Chingi Takiya , P.S. Bajpatti, District – Sitamarhi.
To,
-2-

and order dated 21.10.2009 passed by Sri Harendra Nath Tiwary , the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in Misc. Case No.21 of
2008 , whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has been
pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the Opposite-
party no.2 by way of maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance
case . The petitioner has been further directed to make payment of arrears
of maintenance within 45 days .
in the month of March, 2004 under the customary rights of Hindu and since
then the petitioner and the Opposite-party no.2 were living as the husband
and wife.
4. That, after lapse of a year, the Opposite-party no.2 had gone to
her parental house with her father by the custom of Duragaman (second
marriage ).
-3-
5. That, the parents of the Opposite-party no.2 are very litigant
and shrewd person and they always instigating the Opposite-party no.2 to
not go to her in-law’s house ( Sasural ) with the petitioner without their
consent or permission.
6. That, it is stated that the petitioner approached several
occasions to take the Opposite-party no.2 in his house but the Opposite-
party no.2 did not ready to come with the house of the petitioner since she
did not like the petitioner .
7. That, it is stated that for settlement of matter a Panchayati was
conducted in which the Opposite-party no.2 flatly refused to live with the
petitioner at any cost.
8. That, it is stated that thereafter the petitioner filed a case
before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi for restitution
of their conjugal life which was registered as Matrimonial Case No.89 of
2007 but unfortunately the said case was dismissed in default due to making
non – pairvi of the case in absence of money .
Matrimonial Case No.89 of 2007 is
ANNEXURE- “1” to this revision
application.
-4-
9. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 had also filed a
case against the petitioner and other family members under Sections 498A
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
during the course of hearing of the anticipatory bail application of the
petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi ,the matter was
sent to the Court of Legal Aid Centre, Sitamarhi for compromise in
between the petitioner and the Opposite-party no.2 which was instituted as
Litigative Case No.77 of 2008.
10. That, it is stated that after institution of the case, the learned
Legal Aid Committee issued notice to the Opposite-party no.2 for
appearance but the said notice was returned by the Post Office with the
comment that the Opposite-party no.2 refused to accept them.
11. That, it is stated that the said case was returned back to the
concerned court by the learned Legal Aid Committee, Sitamarhi vide order
dated 23.07.2008 with the comment that the Opposite-party no.2 is not
ready to compromise the matter .
order passed by the learned Legal
Aid Committee , Sitamarhi is annexed
-5-
12. That, notwithstanding all the aforesaid circumstances ,the
Opposite-party no.2 filed a maintenance case in the court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi on 17.03.2008 under Section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case
No.21 of 2008.
Misc. Case No.21 of 2008 is annexed
13. That, in the maintenance case, notice was issued to the
petitioner but the said notice was not served to the petitioner since the
petitioner is a poor labourer and he is doing the work of labour outside the
State ,therefore, ,the petitioner could not appear before the court .
14. That, it is stated that on behalf of the Opposite-party no.2
altogether three witnesses were examined such as Opposite-party no.2
herself , her father and mother ,who are the interested witnesses.
15. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 failed to produce
any independent witness to support his case.
16. That, in fact the Opposite-party no.2 herself deserted the life of
the petitioner and she did not ready to live with the petitioner even after the
best efforts made by him which is evident from the order passed by the
-6-
Legal Aid Centre, Sitamarhi as well as the Matrimonial case filed by the
petitioner before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court , Sitamarhi for
restitution of their conjugal life prior to lodging of the present maintenance
case.
17. That, the petitioner is a poor person and he is working as
labourer on daily wages basis and his monthly income is not more than
Rs.2,000/- per month .
passed the ex-parte impugned judgment and order dated
21.10.2009 ,whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has been
pleased to held that the Opposite-party is entitled to get maintenance of
Rs.1,500/- per month since the date of filing of maintenance case i.e.
17.03.2008 and directed the petitioner for payment of maintenance to the
Opposite-party no.2 at the rate of 1,500/- per month under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure . The learned Principal Judge has also been
pleased to direct the petitioner to make payment of arrears of maintenance
within 45 days.
Sri Harendra Nath Tiwary , the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in Misc. Case
No.21 of 2008 ,the above named petitioner begs
-7-
other following
GROUNDS:
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in view of the facts stated in the
order passed by the Legal Aid Centre , Sitamarhi that the Opposite-party
no.2 is not ready to live with the petitioner ,the Opposite-party no.2 is not
entitled to any maintenance or interim maintenance under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure .
-8-
VI. For that, while fixing the maintenance , the learned Principal
Judge failed to appreciated that the petitioner is a labour and working on
daily wages basis .
VII. For that, the maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge
VIII. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law .
passed by Sri Harendra Nath Tiwary , the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in Misc.
Case No.21 of 2008.
AND/OR
AND
-9-
2008 may kindly be stayed.

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
AND
In the matter of :-
Suresh Chaudhary , son of Ram Chandra Chaudhary ,
Resident of village Thikaha Kothi , P.S. Kathaiya ,District –Muzaffarpur.
VERSUS
To,
The Hon’ble Shri Dipak Misra , the Hon'ble Chief Justice of
-2-
and order dated 7th Day of December , 2009 passed by Sri Bipin Bihari
Pandey , the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge , Muzaffarpur in Cr.

Appeal no. 86 of 2006 , whereby and where under the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 13 th July ,2006
passed by Sri Tribhuwan Nath , the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class,
Muzaffarpur in Trial No.1087 of 2006 with a certain modification that the
period of two years of conviction reduced to 18 months , by which the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class has been pleased to convict the
petitioner and one another to undergo R.I. for two years Under Section
414 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.2,000/.
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, is that the informant
Markandey Singh , Sub-Inspector of Brahmpura Police- Station recorded
his self statement on 19.03.2005 at 3.30 A.M. near Chandani
Chowk ,Muzaffarpur at NH-28 , alleging therein that in the night of
18/19.03.2005 at 1 A.M. proceeded for patrolling along with Nandu
Pandey , Harendra Paswan , Mohan Bhagat, Md. Hussain , Sheo Chandra
Singh and Umesh Singh through the Police Jeep for night patrolling and
during the course of
-3-
patrolling at about 1.30 A.M. , he got secret information that a pick up van
of white colour is running away along with stolen article from a shop.
The informant further alleged that when the information was
received through wireless message at Mal Godown Chowk after which he
proceeded for Chandani Chowk and started checking of the vehicles and
during the course of checking of vehicle a Pick Up Van of white colour was
seen coming towards Bairia with high speed ,then the said van was signaled
to sop and the said van was stopped and Driver of the concerned van asked
that the van was empty.
The informant further alleged that when the informant started
to search then the Driver along with five other persons started to fleeing
away from the Van , the culprits were chased by the Armed Forces and two
of the culprits were apprehended and three were succeeded to flee away.
The informant further alleged that the apprehended persons
disclosed his name as Suresh Chaudhary ,driver of the van and another
apprehended persons disclosed his name as Chandeshwar Sahani.
The informant further alleged that the said Van was searched
and during the course of search Dhoti , Sari , Clothes and some ornaments
of Gold and Silver were recovered and the same were seized after preparing
the seizure list.
4. That, it is stated that on the basis of the aforesaid self recorded
statement of the informant , Brahmpura Police drew up a formal First
-4-
Information Report and registered a case being Brahmpura P.S. Case No.33
of 2005 dated 19.04.2005 attributing offences under Section 414/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Report , Police proceeded with the investigation and during the course of
investigation , the Investigating Officer found that the said seized theft
articles , a First Information Report was instituted by one Devendra Sah in
Ahiyapur Police- Station being Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.89 of 2005 for the
offences under Sections 467,379 , 411 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
submitted charge-sheet against both the apprehended accused persons under
Sections 461, 379, 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Ahiyapur P.S. Case
No.89 of 2005 and under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code in
Brahmpura P.S. Case No.33 of 2005 .
7. That, it is stated that in both the cases cognizance were taken
and both the cases were amalgamated for trial.
8. That, it is stated that the learned Magistrate framed charges
against both the accused persons under Sections 367, 379 ,411 and 414 of
the Indian Penal Code.
9. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether nine
prosecution witnesses were examination by prosecution such as P.W.1
Umesh Kumar Home Guard, P.W.2 Sudhir Kumar Singh seizure list witness
-5-
, P.W.3 Dharm Nath Rai Home Guard & seizure list witness , P.W.4 Shiv
Chandra Singh Home Guard , P.W.5 Parmanand Rai Home Guard , P.W.6
Devendra Sah informant of Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.89 of 2005 , P.W.7
Harendra Paswan Home Guard , P.W.8 Kumar Brajesh Investigating Officer
of the case , P.W.9 Markandey Singh Sub-Inspector as well as informant of
Brahmpura P.S. Case No. 33 of 2005.
10. That, it is stated that P.W.6 Devendra Sah , informant of
Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2005 in his deposition before the learned trial
court deposed that he never identified any one and the seized articles has
not been recovered from his presence.
11. That, it is stated that the seizure list witness P.W.2 and P.W.3 in
their deposition before the learned trial court deposed that the articles were
recovered from the Pick up Van not from the possession of the petitioner .
12. That, it is stated that P.Ws.1 ,3,4,5 ,7 , 8 and 9 are the Police
Personnel ,whereas the P.W.6 is the informant of Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.89
of 2005 from whose shop the seized articles were stolen .
13. That, it is stated that according to the First Information Report ,
it is admitted fact that the petitioner is the Driver of the said Pick Up van
from which the seized articles were recovered but in fact the petitioner has
no concerned with the said articles since the said van is a Public Goods
Carriage Van on the hire basis and if the petitioner has nexus with the said
goods then he did not stop the vehicle on the signal of the Police .
-6-
14. That, it is stated that according to the First Information Report
as well as deposition of the witnesses , it is admitted fact that at the time of
raiding three persons have been succeeded to flee away ,who hired the
vehicle of the petitioner .
15. That, it is stated that during the course of investigation ,the
police failed to arrest those persons ,who succeeded to flee away since the
petitioner has no knowledge about the said persons .
16. That, it is stated that P.W.8 who is the Investigating Officer of
the case, who deposed before the court that he took over the charge of
investigation from one Chandrakant Yadav but the said Chandrakant Yadav
did not come to depose before the court and in absence of his
examination ,the First Information Report of Brahmpura Police-Station has
not been proved.
17. That, it is stated that seizure list witness P.W. 2 Sudhir Kumar
Singh deposed before the court at the time of search and seizure he was
sleeping at his house but he did not disclose that how he had come to the
Brahmpura Police- Station and put his signature on seizure list .
18. That, it is stated that P.W.6 in his evidence did not say that this
petitioner had stolen the articles from his shop ,rather he only identified the
theft articles.
19. That, since the petitioner is the driver of the Commercial
Vehicle and he has no concerned with the goods loaded in the van either
-7-
theft or not .
20. That, it is stated that the prosecution has failed to establish the
offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code ,therefore, there is no
occasion to prove the case under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.
the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and all the witnesses are
interested witnesses ,therefore, their evidence is not trust worthy .
22. That, it is stated that the learned Magistrate ,without taking into
consideration of the serious discrepancies in between the evidence of the
witnesses as well as the First Information Report , convicted the petitioner
vide judgment and order dated 13th July ,2006 in Trial No.1087 of 2006 to
undergo R.I. for two years Under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code
and fine of Rs.2,000/ only on the ground that the seized articles was
identified by P.W.6 as theft articles .
judgment and order dated 13.07.2006
application.
13.07.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Muzaffarpur
in Trial No.1087 of 12006 ,the petitioner preferred an appeal
-8-
in the court of learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge , Muzaffarpur , who
also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order
passed by the learned trial court with a certain modification that the period
of two years of conviction reduced to 18 months without considering the
material available on record vide judgment and order dated 07.12.2009.
23. That, the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he has
24. That, the petitioner is behind the bars about a year and during
the course of trial the petitioner was all along on bail .
25. That, it is stated that at the time of conviction by the learned
trial court ,the learned trial court granted provisional bail which was also
confirmed by the learned appellate court.
judgment and order dated 7th Day of December ,
2009 passed by Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey , the
learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge ,
Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal no. 86 of 2006 and
also the judgment and order dated 13 th July ,2006
passed by Sri Tribhuwan Nath , the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in
-9-
Trial No.1087 of 2006, the above named
GROUNDS:
contradiction in between the version of the First Information Report as well
as evidences of the witnesses .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that it is admitted fact
that the petitioner is a Driver of the Public Carriage Vehicle and on the
signal of Police he stopped the vehicle and if the petitioner has any nexus
with the said article , he did not stop the vehicle and tried to escape away
but he did not do so .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that according to the First
Information Report on the signal of the police ,the petitioner stopped the
vehicle and three persons succeeded to flee away and on query the petitioner
disclosed his name but he did not disclose the name of those persons ,who
-10-
succeeded to flee away and if the petitioner has any nexus with them then
he must be disclosed their name.
witnesses except P.W.2 and P.W.6 is the Police Personnel whereas the
P.W.6 is the informant of Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.89 of 2005 and P.W.2 is
the man of Police Personnel, it means that all the witnesses are interested
witnesses .
deposition said that he only identified the articles ,who was theft from his
shop but he did not say anything that this petitioner had stolen the articles
from his shop.
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the P.W.2 Sudhir
Kumar , seizure list witness in his deposition said that at the time of search
and seizure he was sleeping at his house but he did not disclose that how he
reached at the Police – Station for putting his signature on the seizure list.
VIII. For that ,while convicting the learned trail court as well as
appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution did not establish his
case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code ,therefore, there is no
occasion to establish the case under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.
-11-
IX. For that ,while convicting the learned trail court as well as
appellate court failed to appreciate that the first Investigating Officer of the
case, who conducted investigation in earlier stage did not examine by the
prosecution .
X. For that ,while convicting the learned trail court as well as
appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed to
examine the Police Officer, in whose presence the Test Identification Parade
of articles has been conducted.
XI. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
XII. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
the judgment and order dated 7 th Day of
December , 2009 passed by Sri Bipin Bihari
Pandey , the learned 9 th Additional Sessions
Judge , Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal no. 86 of 2006
-12-
and also the judgment and order dated 13 th
July ,2006 passed by Sri Tribhuwan Nath , the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur
in Trial No.1087 of 2006 and discharge the
petitioner from the charges .
AND/OR

CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2010.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Chhote Lal Murmu ,son of Late Dhuma Murmu ,
Resident of village- Tumba Pahad , P.O. Chai, P.S. Jhajha ,District – Jamui.
VERSUS
2. Shanti Murmu , daughter of Sri Lakhan Marandi ,
Resident of village- Kudwan Tand , P.O. Chhapardih , P.S. Sono , District
- Jamui.
……………..…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
is for setting aside the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by Sri
,the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in Maintenance Case
No.20M of 2009 ( Shanti Murmu –versus- Chhote Lal Murmu ) ,whereby
and where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to direct the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the Opposite-party no.2 by way of
interim maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance case . The
petitioner has been further directed to pay interim maintenance allowance
on 15th of each successive month.
in the year 1998 under the customary rights of Santhal and since then the
petitioner and the Opposite-party no.2 were living as the husband and wife.
4. That, the petitioner was blessed with two sons with the
wedlock of the Opposite-party no.2. The eldest son of the petitioner is more
than nine years .
-3-
5. That, though immediately after the marriage, the petitioner
noticed that the conduct of the Opposite-party no.2 was not fair . The
petitioner further received information that the Opposite-party no.2 had
pre-marital relation with a boy of her own village.
6. That, since the Opposite-party no.2 was the wife of the
petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner overlooked her pas conduct and tried to
make her relationship cordial with the Opposite-party no.2 for which the
petitioner was given his all love and affection to the Opposite-party no.2.
7. That, yet the Opposite-party no.2 did not give up her bad
habits .Before the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the
Opposite-party no.2, the petitioner was appointed as a 4 th Grade Employee
in this Hon'ble High Court . Initially after the marriage , the Opposite-party
no.2 was living in the petitioner’s native village but when the petitioner was
informed by his parents about the conduct of the Opposite-party no.2, the
petitioner took her to Patna and resided with the Opposite-party no.2in a
rental house in Yarpur Mohalla.
8. That, when the petitioner was allotted a Quarter in Adalatganj
by this Hon'ble Court ,he shifted his residence from Yarpur to Adalatganj in
the year 2008. In front of the petitioner’s quarter at Adalatganj another 4 th

Grade Employee namely Shyam Sundar Marandi has his quarter . Pappu
Marandi aged about 24-25 years is the son of Shyam Sundar Marandi.
-4-
9. That, since the petitioner had to go on his duty of this Hon'ble
Court ,therefore, and taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner ,the
Opposite-party no.2 had developed her illicit relation with Pappu Marandi
son of Shyam Sundar Marandi.
10. That, some how or the other ,when the petitioner could learnt
about the illicit relations of Opposite-party no.2 with next door neighbours
Pappu Marandi , he had put pressure upon the Opposite-party no.2 to give
up her bad habits and live in the house with dignities ,which was since not
acceptable to Opposite-party no.2 , she threatened the petitioner that if
would come in the way of her relationship with Pappu Marandi ,she would
file false cases and would implicate the petitioner .
11. That, since the petitioner is a peace loving person, he did not
invite any confrontation with the Opposite-party no.2 ,rather tried his best to
settle the dispute with the Opposite-party no.2.
12. That, it is relevant to state that continuously from 12.01.2009
to 16.01.2009 ,when the family members of Pappu Marandi had gone to
their native place ,the Opposite-party no.2 after the petitioner and children
slept ,put the lock on the door and went to the quarter of Pappu Marandi
where she stayed for whole of the night and would returned back only when
the petitioner and the children had woke up but they were behind the lock in
their quarter.
-5-
13. That, in view of the aforesaid situation, the petitioner had no
option but to inform the parents of the liabilities about her illicit relation
with Pappu Marandi and requested them to come Patna ,so that the
differences could be resolved ,when they had assured to come Patna on
17.01.2009.
14. That, some how or the other ,when the Opposite-party no.2 had
the information about the arrival of her parents on 17.01.2009 ,when she
went to the quarter of Pappu Marandi in the night of 16.01.2009 ,the
petitioner was under the impression that according to her usual habits ,she
would be coming back to the quarter on 17.01.2009 but since the Opposite-
party no.2 had the information of arrival of her parents on 17.01.2009 in the
morning of 17.01.2009 ,she fled away with Pappu Marandi to some
unknown destination and did not come back to petitioner’s quarter.
15. That, when the parents of the Opposite-party no.2 reached to
the petitioner’s quarter ,they were informed about the incident in great detail.
Since they were aware about the past conduct of the Opposite-party no.2,
they had first consoled the petitioner to forget the Opposite-party no.2 and
they also assured that they would also forget the Opposite-party no.2 was
ever their daughter but for reasons best known to them , they changed their
statements in the evening and asked the informant to search the Opposite-
party no.2 ,otherwise they would file a criminal case against the petitioner
for the murder of their daughter.
-6-
16. That, under the circumstances , the petitioner started the
search of the Opposite-party no.2 ,when she was found along with Pappu
Marandi at the matrimonial house of the sister of Pappu Marandi at
Danapur , Manpura . The petitioner made a call on the cell phone of a co-
villager of parents of the Opposite-party no.2 namely Bhogen Tuddu ,who
was present at the petitioner’s quarter from Danapur ,Manpura and the
Opposite-party no.2 had talked with her parents . In that conversation with
the parents ,the Opposite-party no.2 flatly refused to stay with the petitioner
had expressed her will to marry with Pappu Marandi . She had further
stated to her parents that if they would compel the Opposite-party no.2 to
live with the petitioner ,she would commit suicide.
17. That, after that consultation with the Opposite-party no.2 , the
parents were looking quite satisfied . They stayed at the quarter of the
petitioner for two days but again on 3 rd day they turned their voice and
asked the petitioner to arrange their face to face meeting with the Opposite-
party no.2 . Under compulsion ,the petitioner hired an Auto Rickshaw and
took the parents of the Opposite-party no.2 to Danapur ,Manpura at the
sister’s house of Pappu Marandi , where the Opposite-party no.2 was stayed
and after face to face meeting with the Opposite-party no.2 , they failed to
bring the Opposite-party no.2 to their own terms to live with the petitioner
and thereafter they came back . One Arjun Murmu was also along with
them.
-7-
18. That, thereafter the parents of the Opposite-party no.2 went
back to their native place whereupon they asked the petitioner to return their
daughter at their native place otherwise the petitioner was again threatened
for his implication in a false criminal case instituted for murder of their
daughter . Since ,the petitioner was helpless and had no other remedy to get
the dispute resolved amicably without shelter of the court, he filed a petition
before the Station Head Officer of Patna Kotwali Police- Station on
26.01.2009 , narrating the entire story in detail.
application dated 26.01.2009 filed by
the petitioner before the Station Head
Officer ,Patna Kotwali Police-
Station is annexed herewith and
application.
19. That, on the basis of the aforesaid application of the
petitioner , a Sanha was entered in Kotwali Police- Station as
S.D.E.No.1507 of 2009 dated 26.01.2009 and an Officer of the Kotwali

Police- Station went to the quarter of Pappu Marandi to verify the fact ,when
he gathered the truth of the information filed by the petitioner ,he asked the
parents of Pappu
-8-
Marandi to get the physical appearance of the Opposite-party no.2 otherwise
they would be put behind the bars.
20. That, since the parents of Pappu Marandi were aware of the
whereabouts , where the Opposite-party no.2 was living with Pappu Marandi
,they informed them and on their information Pappu Marandi along with the
Opposite-party no.2 reached the quarter of Pappu Marandi on
27.01.2009 ,when the Kotwali Police was informed by the petitioner .
21. That, on information of the petitioner ,the police arrived at the
quarter of Pappu Marandi where it found the Opposite-party no.2 . The
statement of the Opposite-party no.2 was taken by the Police, wherein she
flatly refused and expressed her desire to live with Pappu Marandi.
22. That, since the Opposite-party no.2 was adamant to marry and
live with Pappu Marandi ,when this message went to the society of
Santhals , a Panchayati was held under the chairmanship of Pradhan
( Majhi Saheb ) of village- Kodwa Tand , the village of the Opposite-party
no.2 on 01.02.2009 . In Panchayati too the Opposite-party no.2 clearly
stated that she would not live with the petitioner and would live with Pappu
Marandi . As a result of such statement ,the Society of Santhals terminated

the relationship of the petitioner with the Opposite-party no.2 on and after
01.02.2009 and both of them were released of their relationship.
Panchnama dated 01.02.2009 is
-9-
23. That, after 01.02.2009 ,the Opposite-party no.2 was staying at
the house of her parents and the petitioner was staying in his quarter with
his two children born with the wedlock of the Opposite-party no.2.
24. That, notwithstanding all the aforesaid circumstances ,the
Opposite-party no.2 filed a maintenance case in the court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui on 26.03.2009 under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered as Case No.20M of
2009.
Maintenance Case No.20M of 2005 is
25. That, before filing of the aforesaid Maintenance Case , the
Opposite-party no.2 filed a complaint case in the court of learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate , Jamui on 03.03.2009 ,alleging offences against the
petitioner and other family members under Sections 323,324,379,307, 498A
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
-10-
No.216C of 2009 is annexed herewith
application.
26. That, in the maintenance case, notice was issued to the
petitioner and on receipt of the notice ,the petitioner appeared before the
court and filed his written statement on 18.07.2009 .
27. That, on 18.07.2009 , a petition for interim maintenance was
filed on behalf of the Opposite-party no.2 and after hearing the parties , the
learned Principal Judge vide his order dated 25.11.2009 directed the
petitioner for payment of interim maintenance to the Opposite-party no.2 at
the rate of 2000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure .
dated 25.11.2009 passed by Sri

,the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui
in Maintenance Case No.20M of 2009 ,the above
GROUNDS:
-11-
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in view of the facts stated in
Panchnama ,the Opposite-party no.2 is not entitled to any maintenance or
interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in view of the provisions contained
in sub-Section -4 of Section -125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the
Opposite-party no.2 would not be entitled to any maintenance since she is
living in adultery .
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that if the Panchnama of Santhal
Society is available on record , according to which the Opposite-party no.2
is living in adultery with Pappu Marandi and has ,therefore, denied /refused
to live with the petitioner ,she would cannot be entitled to any maintenance
under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

interim maintenance cannot be passed with irrespective effect i.e. from the
-12-
set aside the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by Sri
,the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Jamui in Maintenance Case
No.20M of 2009 .
AND/OR
AND

IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
AND
In the matter of :-
Baiju Rai ………….……..…………..……………..……PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and another………………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
application.
3. That, it is stated that the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Sitamarhi passed the impugned judgment and order dated

21.10.2009 ex-parte i.e. without hearing the petitioner ,therefore, the
petitioner has got no knowledge about the passing of the aforesaid order.
4. That, it is stated that when the legal notice was served to the
petitioner along with the aforesaid judgment and order dated
21.10.2009 ,therefore, the petitioner has got knowledge about the impugned
order which was under challenge before this Hon'ble Court.
5. That, it is stated that after knowledge of the aforesaid order
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court , Sitamarhi ,the
petitioner applied for the certified copy of the aforesaid order and after
obtaining the certified copy of the said order and arranged the money , the
petitioner approached the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner for filing of the criminal revision application.
6. That, it is stated that since the date of knowledge of the
aforesaid order , the present revision application is within the time .
-3-
reasons aforesaid.

application .
AND/OR
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.

Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Md. Nezam , son of Md. Allauddin ,
Resident of village-Bardah , P.S. Muffasil, P.O. Dariyapur, District –
Munger.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar.…………….………………OPPOSITE -PARTIY.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri Shiva Kirti Singh , the Hon’ble Acting
Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and His

-2-
and order dated 24.08.2009 passed by learned Sri Neeraj Kishore ,Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in G.R.No.1390 of 2009 arising out of
Gardanibag P.S. Case No.261 of 1999 , whereby and where under the
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the
offences under Sections 419, 420 , 467 , 468, 471 ,120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code illegally .
2. That, the petitioner has never moved before this Hon'ble High
Court or before the learned Sessions Judge , Patna against the impugned
order previously.
3. That, the prosecution case was registered on the written
statement of the informant ,who is the Sub-Inspector of the Police of
Digha Police –Station ,w Hon'ble was deputed at that time to control the
law and order in the recruitment of Constable in B.M.P. – V Stadium . It is
further alleged that four candidates were arrested in the physical test for
selection of Constable due to impersonation and they were making forgery
in the application form as well as in master chart. And ,all of them could not
give their names clearly and accordingly the First Information Report was
instituted . And , all the accused persons were remanded to judicial custody.
-3-
copy of the F.I.R. of Gardanibag P.S.
Case No.261 of 1999 is annexed
4. That, one of the arrested accused persons disclosed his name ,
parental name as well as address wrongly and ultimately after being released
on bail by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge , Patna on 07.05.1999 ,
he hide himself and became traceless.
5. That, on due process of the trial ,the present petitioner was
summoned and the petitioner came and enquired about the matter and found
the address and father’s name has been mentioned as same of the petitioner
but the date of birth as well as mark of identification mentioned in the
application form is totally defers to the date of birth of this
petitioner ,because the date of birth of this petitioner is 3 rd April, 1966 and
the photograph which has been affixed in the format of the application form
also defers from the photograph of this petitioner ,the documents and the
photographs such as copy of the voter list and Election photo identity card
is being annexed in the present application to easily ascertain the real
controversy between the imposter and the present petitioner .

True photo stat copies of the Voter
List and Election Photo Identity Card
-4-
are annexed herewith and marked as
application.
6. That, the certificate of Home Guard which is kept on record
has been submitted by procuring the same certificate by the imposter . The
age of this petitioner is so old who could not be eligible for the selection of
Constable . In this way, in a planned manner with the collusion of the
officials concerned such type of offence is being committed now a day.
7. That, some one tried to make impersonation in the way of this
selection by taking advantage of the Home Guard certificate which does
not consist the date of birth and when he was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody and after being released on bail, he became traceless and
the petitioner is quite innocent for such type of offence came in picture on
the basis of his name , parental name and address , the real culprit dragged
his false name , parental name and address and consequently his name has
come in the offence.
8. That, if the record of this case is verified meticulously ,then it
will be apparent from the perusal of the record ,the present petitioner will
be found innocent.
9. That, the impugned order is quite illegal as per the facts and
circumstances mentioned above and the same is fit to be set aside.
-5-
on dated 24.08.2009 passed by learned Sri Niraj
Kishore ,Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in
G.R.No.1390 of 2009 arising out of Gardanibag
P.S. Case No.261 of 1999, the above named
GROUNDS:
II. For that , the learned trail court should have examined the
record of the case meticulously .
III. For that, it is to be considered the name , parentage name may
be same but the mark of identification as well as date of birth cannot be
exactly same and in this case ,the imposter deliberately dragged the name of
this petitioner and he became traceless.
IV. For that, the mark of identification as well as the Election Photo
Identity Card and Voter List also being attached in this petition and the
same may be considered at the time of hearing of the case.

V. For that, the impugned order is bad in law and facts and the
same is fit to be set aside.
-6-
for the records of the learned trial court and after
the order dated 24.08.2009 passed by learned
Sri Neeraj Kishore ,Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class,
Patna in G.R.No.1390 of 2009 arising out of
Gardanibag P.S. Case No.261 of 1999.
AND/OR
AND
During the pendency of this application , the
operation of the impugned order and further
proceeding of G.R.No.1390 of 1999 arising out of
Gardanibag P.S. Case No.261 of 1999 pending in
the court of learned Sri Neeraj Kishore , Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Patna may kindly be stayed.

( PETITIONER IN CUSTODY )
CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Ramji Kumar, son of Jogi Sah @ Jogendra Sah ,
Resident of village and P.S. Runnisaidpur , District - Sitamarhi/
VERSUS
The State of Bihar. …….……………..……………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,
The Hon’ble Sri Shiva Kirti Singh , the Hon’ble Acting Chief
Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and His

-2-
and order dated 23rd November , 2009 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey
the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,F.T. C. –VI, Sitamarhi in
Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2009/ 07 of 2009 , whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the prayer for bail
of the petitioner in connection with Trial No.523/2009 arising out of
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.162 of 2009 dated 30.05.2009 ,pending in the
court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi for the offence Under
Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code .
Report in brief is that the informant gave his written report before the Station
Head Officer of Runnisaidpur Police- Station , stating therein that on
29.05.2009 ,he along with his Bhabhi came to Runnisaidpur by
Motorcycle ,thereafter they went to Muzaffarpur after standing his
Motorcycle in front of Rameshwari Market. It is further alleged that on the

next day when he returned from Muzaffarpur and reached Rameshwari
Market but he did not found his Motorcycle where he parked his Motorcycle
-3-
then he enquired and during inquiry he found that one another Motorcycle
was also stolen by unknown miscreants thereafter he informed
Runnisaidpur Police- Station about the matter.
informant ,a First Information Report case was registered bearing
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.162 of 2009 dated 30.05.2009 registered for the
offences under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code .
F.I.R. of Runnisaidpur P.S.Case
No.162 of 2009 dated 30.05.2009 is
annexed hereto and marked as
Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi being Trial No. 523 of 2009 arising out of
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.162 of 2009 dated 30.05.2009 registered for the
offences under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code.
police due to non-fulfillment of the illegal demand of the police.

7. That, the petitioner is not named in the First Information
Report although the First Information Report was registered against
unknown persons.
-4-
police arrested the petitioner merely on the basis of suspicion and obtained
the signature of the petitioner on a plain paper under coercion and threat ,
which was subsequently converted in to the confessional statement of the
petitioner ,which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law .
9. That, it is stated that the theft Motorcycle of the informant has
not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner rather it was
recovered from the possession of Hira Lal Sah at village- Suhai , P.S.
Dumra , District – Sitamarhi on 30.05.2009 itself which is evident from the
seizure list itself .
seizure list is annexed herewith and
application.
the Court Juvenile Justice Board ,Sitamarhi ,wherein the learned Juvenile
juvenile .
-5-
Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi which was rejected by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 05.09.2009 .
dated 29.08.2009 and 05.09.2009
Board , Sitamarhi is annexed herewith
this application.
Appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi being Cr. Appeal
No.68 of 2009 /7 of 2009 ,which was rejected by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge ,F.T.C. – VI , Sitamarhi vide his order dated 23.11.2009.
petitioner.
30.05.2009 without any fault.
-6-
bail.
Court.
19. That, it is stated that the father of the petitioner undertakes that
he will care about the activity of the petitioner in future.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the the
judgment and order dated 23rd November , 2009
passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey the learned
Additional Sessions Judge ,F.T. C. –VI,
Sitamarhi in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2009/ 07
of 2009,the above named petitioner begs to prefer
following
GROUNDS:
well as on facts.
-7-
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that no one seen the petitioner
at the time of committing the so-called occurrence .
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that looted Motor Cycle of
the informant have not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
VII. For that, while dismissing the Criminal Appeal ,the learned
Additional Sessions Judge ought to have considered upon the so-called

confessional statement of the petitioner ,which was obtained by the police
under coercion and threat .
-8-
law .
after hearing the parties be further pleased to
set aside the judgment and order dated 23 rd
November , 2009 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar
Pandey the learned Additional Sessions
Judge ,F.T. C. –VI, Sitamarhi in Criminal Appeal
No.68 of 2009/ 07 of 2009 and be further pleased
to direct for release of the petitioner on bail to the
Sitamarhi in connection with Trial No.523 of
2009 , arising out of Runnisaidpur P.S. Case
No.162 of 2009.
AND/OR
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
AND
In the matter of :-
1. Latif Nadaf , son of Late Dost Md. Nadaf
2. Islam Nadar , son of Md. Haneef Nadaf ,
3. Illiyas Nadaf, son of Late Sahub Nadaf,
All resident of village – Azamgarhi , P.S. Dumra, District –
Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Asaraf Nadaf , son of
Resident of village – Azamgarhi , P.S. Dumra, District –Sitamarhi
-2-
To,
The Hon’ble Shri Shiva Kirti Singh , the Hon'ble Acting
and order dated 05.07.2007 passed by Sri Narsignh Prasad, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.6, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal
no.54 of 1991/ 17 of 2006 , whereby and where under the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the criminal appeal
filed by the petitioners and confirmed the judgment and order dated
27.06.1991 passed by Sri D.P. Jaiswal , learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st
Class, Sitamarhi in Trial No.40 of 1991 arising out of complaint case
no.CI/407 /86 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class has been
pleased to convict the petitioner no.1 Latif Nadaf Under Section 447
of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for one month Under Section
426 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for one month , one year R.I.
for one month for the offence under Sections 324 and 379 of the Indian
Penal Code each and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and one another Md.
Suleman Nadaf ( since deceased ) were convicted and sentenced to
-3-
undergo R.I. for one month each for the offence Under Sections 447 and
426 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been further sentenced to
undergo R.I. for three months Under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code .
All these sentences will run concurrently.
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, is that the complainant
Asaraf Nadaf filed a complaint case bearing No.CI/407/86 in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi stating therein that the
complainant has filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Sitamarhi West and Officer-in-Charge of Dumra Police – Station for
lodging Sanaha for which the accused persons annoyed with him . It is
further alleged that on 28.07.86 at 4 P.M. , the accused persons were
starting to uprooted his Tatti fixed in his land various armed with Lathi
and Garasa ,then the complainant protested to them , accused Latif gave a
garasa blow on his head for which he received cut injury on his head and he
inflicted second blow of Garssa but any how ,he saved himself but he
received cut injuries on his hands. It is further alleged that remaining
accused persons assaulted him with Lathi and fists and slap , accused Latif
also took out Rs.200/- from his pocket . It is further alleged that when son
of the complainant namely Subhani Nadaf and wintess Islam Nadaf came
-4-
to save him , accused persons also assaulted them with Lathi ,fists and
slaps .
4. That, it is stated that after examination of the complainant on
solemn affirmation and examination of three witnesses , cognizance were
taken against the petitioners and one another .
5. That, it is stated that thereafter Charges were framed against
the petitioners and one another namely Md. Suleman Nadaf on 02.04.1987
and at the time of framing of charges pleased not guilty and claimed to be
tried .
6. That, it is stated that during the course of trial , prosecution has
examined altogether 7 witnesses in support of his evidence such as P.W.1
Islam Nadaf son of the complainant , P.W.2 Subhan son of the
complainant , P.W.3 Kalam Hussain , P.W.4 Asaraf Nadaf complainant
himself , P.W.5 Suryadeo Mishra , P.W.6 Dr. G.K. Jha , who examined the
injured persons i.e. P.W.1 ,2 and 3 and P.W.7 Shivji Prasad, who is a
formal witness .
7. That, it is stated that P.W. 1, 2 and 4 are the interest witnesses
and co-related with each other and their evidence is not trustworthy.
8. That, it is stated that P.W.3 and P.W.5 is also the close friend
of the complainant and their evidence is also not trust worthy.
9. That, it is stated that admitted fact that there is land dispute
between both the parties and the land in question was executed by Kitab Ali
-5-
in favour of the father of the petitioner no.1 namely Dost Mohammad and
the said land came in possession of the petitioners which is evident from the
Exhibit produced by the defense .
10. That, it is stated that all the witnesses are interested witnesses
and their statements are contradictory to each other.
11. That, it is stated that according to the complaint petition , the
occurrence had taken place at 4 P.M. but according to the evidence of P.W.5
,he reached at the place of occurrence after sunset ,it means that he is not
the eye witness of the alleged occurrence .
12. That, it is stated that the evidence of P.W.6, who examined the
injured persons , is also not credible and according to him all the injuries
found on the persons of the injured persons were not only simple but
superficial in nature which could be possible by other means than assault
also.
13. That, it is stated that according to the evidence of P.W.2 , there
is contradiction of time about 5 months and odds , which falsifies the
prosecution version itself.
14. That, it is stated that the learned Magistrate without taking into
consideration of the serious discrepancies in between the evidence of the
witnesses as well as the complaint petition , convicted the petitioners vide
judgment and order dated 27.06.1991 passed in Trial No.40 of 1991.
-6-
application.
27.06.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Sitamarhi in
Trial No.40 of 1991 ,the petitioners and one another namely Md. Suleman
Nadaf preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge , Fast Track Court No.6, Sitamarhi , who also dismissed the appeal
filed by the petitioners and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial
court without considering the material available on record vide judgment
and order dated 05.07.2007.

16. That, it is stated that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners in the learned Appellate Court did not inform the petitioners
about the rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioners ,therefore, the
petitioners could not get knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal.
17. That, it is stated that when the learned trial court issued
summons in compliance of the order of the learned appellate court vide
order dated 28.07.2009 , then the petitioners have got knowledge about the
dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioners .
-7-
A true photo stat copy of the summon
this revision application.
18. That, it is stated that when the petitioners had come to their
native village , they were arrested by the police and produced before the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi and accordingly the
learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate sent the petitioners to the
judicial custody vide order dated 24.09.2009 in view of the order dated
27.06.1991.

this revision application.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order dated 05.07.2007 passed by Sri Narsignh Prasad, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.6,
Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no.54 of 1991/ 17 of 2006 and also the
judgment order dated 27.06.1991 passed by Sri D.P. Jaiswal ,
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sitamarhi in Trial No.40
-8-
of 1991 arising out of complaint case no.CI/407 /86 , the
above named petitioners beg to prefer this revision application
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge is bad in law as well as on facts.
contradiction in between the version of the complaint petition as well as
evidences of the witnesses .
III. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the land in question
was executed by one Kitab Ali in favour of the father of the petitioner no.1
and coming in their peaceful possession .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that according to the
evidence of P.W.5 he came in the evening though according to the complaint
petition the alleged time of occurrence is 4 P.M. ,it means that he is not the
eye witness of the occurrence.
V. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that P.W.1,2 and 4 are
-9-
the co-related to each other and the P.W.3 and 5 are also the close friend of
the P.W.4 ,it means that all the witnesses are interested witnesses .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that complaint petition
are not fully supported with the injury reports .
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that there is counter case
filed by the wife of the petitioner no.1 against the P.W.1 to P.W.4.
justice.
parties ,call for the records of the learned court below and
judgment and order dated 05.07.2007 passed by Sri Narsignh
Prasad, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge , F. T. C. No.6,
Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no.54 of 1991/ 17 of 2006 and also set
aside the judgment order dated 27.06.1991 passed by Sri D.P.
Jaiswal , learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sitamarhi
-10-
in Trial No.40 of 1991 arising out of complaint
case no.CI/407 /86.
AND/OR
AN D
During the pendency of this application the
petitioners may be released on bail to the
satisfaction of the learned trail court .

IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
AND
In the matter of :-
Vijay Paswan ………….…………..……………..……PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar ………………..…………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,

-2-
application.
Sadar Sitamarhi in Trial No.927of 2003 ,the petitioner and his father
preferred an appeal in the court of learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge ,
Sitamarhi being Cr. Appeal No.32 of 2003/ 12 of 2009 and during the
pendency of the appeal ,the petitioner on bail .
appeal was not taken up for such a long time and ultimately the appeal was
heard and dismissed on 29.07.2009 but the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner in the appeal did not inform the petitioner about the
dismissal of appeal and when the petitioner has come to his native village ,
he has got knowledge about the dismissal of appeal then he surrendered
before the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi Sadar
on 27.04.2010.
-3-
5. That, it is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of
the memo of appeal ,the father of the petitioner died ,who was doing the
pairvi of the case in his life time .
reasons aforesaid.
application .
AND/OR

IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.

AND
In the matter of :-
Abhishek Kumar Gautam ……………………..……PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and others………………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
application in which according to the Stamp Reporter ,the limitation expire
on 14.04.2009 , whereas the revision application has been filed before this
Hon'ble Court on 24.07.2009.
3. That, after institution of the First Information Report , when the
statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Investigating Officer , the
petitioner has supported the prosecution case, but thereafter he proceeded

for Delhi for prosecuting his further studies during the pendency of
investigation .
4. That, whenever the petitioner was visiting his native place, he
was taking the stock of situations and development in the case but when the
impugned order cannot be passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,
Siwan , accepting the final form submitted by the police , the petitioner was
in the midst of Semester of his studies at Delhi and was ,therefore, unable to
come at his native place to take the recourse of law available to him against
the impugned order.
5. That, after the end of Semester in June , 2009, the petitioner
came to his native place and had, thereafter taken steps for filing of the
instant revision application against the impugned order passed by the
-3-
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Siwan and thereafter this revision
application could be filed before this Hon'ble Court on 24.07.2009.
reasons aforesaid.

application .
AND/OR
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.

Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
1. Ratneshwar Thakur , son of Rama Kant Thakur,
2. Sanjeet Kumar Thakur , son of Vidya Sagar Thakur,
Both resident of village- Jatna, P.S. Gaighat, District –
Muzaffarpur.
……………………PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Bihar.…………….………………OPPOSITE -PARTIY.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri P.K.Misra , the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna and His Lordship
-2-
and order on the point of sentence dated 11.06 .2009 passed by Sri
Shailendra Kumar Pandey , the learned 6 th Additional Sessions
Judge ,Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.479 of 2006 , whereby and
where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to
convict the petitioners under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and he
has been pleased to accord the sentence for which the petitioners spent in
the period of custody for 12 days prior to trial.
Report in brief is that the informant Sanjay Kumar Thakur gave his
Fardbeyan alleging therein that on 06.07.1994 , the Pattidar of the informant
namely Kaushal Kishore Thakur was ploughing the land of the informant
upon which the informant went there and protested and after exchange of
hot words , the accused Sanjeet Kumar having armed with Bhala in his
hand , accused Ratneshwar Thakur having armed with Farsa , accused
Bhuneshwar Thakur @ Tunni Thakur , accused Vidya Sagar Thakur and
-3-
accused Ramakant Thakur all having armed with Lathi in their hand came
near the disputed land .
It is further alleged that on alarm co-villagers Rakesh Kumar
Mandal , Ram Chandra Thakur , Swarath Mandal and Pramod Thakur also
reached there .
The Informant further alleged that in the meantime at about 11
A.M. accused Vidya Sagar Thakur exerted the other accused persons to
finish the informant upon which accused Sanjeet Kumar gave a Bhala blow
on the person of the informant heating at his left of the chest and the
informant fell down .
It is further alleged that thereafter accused Ratneshwar Thakur
gave a Farsa blow on the scalp of the informant and other accused persons
also assaulted with Lathi and the informant became unconscious and
thereafter brother and father of the informant have brought him at Benibad
Out post for necessary action.
4. That, on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant , Gaighat
Police drew up a formal First Information Report and registered a case being
Gaighat P.S. Case No.85 of 1994 dated 11.03.1994 attributing offences
under Section 147,148,447,324, 323,504 , 114 , 307 of the Indian Penal
Code.
5. That, it is stated that after investigation the police submitted
-4-
charge-sheet against all the six First Information Report named accused
persons .
6. That, it is stated that after submission of the charge-sheet ,the
learned Magistrate took cognizance against all the accused persons vide

7. That, it is stated that prior to framing of the charge one accused
Vidya Sagar Thakur died in the year 1997 .
committed to the court of Sessions and the charges were framed against the
five accused persons under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code
where the petitioners and others pleaded not guilty since they have been
falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute and claimed to be tried .
9. That, it is stated that during the pendency of the trial accused
Ramakant Thakur died in the year 2007 ,therefore, only four accused
persons are facing trial including the petitioners .
10. That, it is stated that on behalf of the prosecution altogether 8
witnesses were examined such as P.W.1 Rakesh Mandal , P.W.2 Ram
Chandra Thakur , P.W.3 Amod Kumar, P.W.4 Vijay Kumar (full brother of
the informant ) ,P.W.5 Raj Kumar ( father of the informant ) ,P.W.6 Sanjay
Kumar (informant himself) ,PW.7 Dr. Amarnath Prasad Gupta and P.W.8
Ram Snehi Gupta (Investigating Officer of the case).
-5-
11. That, it is stated that the P.W.1 is a chance witness and in his
evidence he admitted that when he reached at the place of occurrence ,then
he saw that the informant Sanjay was lying on the earth but he did not say
about exhortation by any accused persons to kill in his entire evidence .

12. That, it is stated that P.W.2 is a resident of another village and
in his evidence neither said that how he chance to be present at the place
of occurrence nor said about any exhortation to kill .
13. That, it is stated that P.W.3 in his deposition ,he did not say
how he chance to reach at the place of occurrence nor admit any
exhortation
14. That, it is stated that the P.W.4 , P.W.5 and P.W.6 informant
himself are the interested witnesses and related to each other and their
statement is not trustworthy.
15. That, it is stated that in paragraph nos.3 and 4 of the cross-
examination , P.W.4 asserted that his brother (informant) was unconscious
and firstly his brother was taken to Gaighat Hospital where he regain
conscious after two hours and was examined by the doctor and then he
went to Benibad Out Post . It is pertinent to mention here that as per the
injury report, the time of examination of the informant by the doctor is
given as 1.45 P.M. but surprisingly the Fardbeyan of the informant was
recorded at 1.00 P.M. , which is the impossible and makes the entire
prosecution case is false and fabricated.
-6-
16. That, it is stated that the P.W.6 in his evidence said that
Gaighat Hospital is 7 K.M. from the Gaighat Police- Station which is
admittedly only 200 yards from the Gaighat Hospital.

17. That, it is stated that P.W.6 in his evidence admitted that the
land in question is not in his possession ,therefore, there is no question for
his presence at the place of the occurrence.
18. That, it is stated that P.W.7 Doctor in his evidence admitted
that the injuries received by informant was very minor .
19. That, it is stated that P.W.8 Investigating Officer of the case , in
his evidence doubted about the prosecution version and also said that there
is no scope for earlier recording of Fardbeyan before the examination of
the informant by the doctor.
20. That, it is stated that it is admitted fact that there is land dispute
between both the parties and the land in question is in possession of the
petitioners’ family ,therefore, the prosecution party had occasion to falsely
implicate the petitioners in the instant false case .
21. That, it is stated that the prosecution party failed to prove his
case except all the reasonable doubts but the learned Additional Sessions
Judge convicted the petitioners under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code
though in the said Section charges were not framed.
judgment and order on the point of sentence dated
-7-
11.06 .2009 passed by Sri Shailendra Kumar
Pandey , the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge
,Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.479 of 2006

, the above named petitioners beg to prefer this
following
GROUNDS:
well as on facts.
II. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that the charges has not been framed under Section
324 of the Indian Penal Code ,therefore, there is no question of conviction
under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
III. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that the injury report has not been fully proved by
the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubts ,so that there is no question of
conviction of the petitioner under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
IV. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that the prosecution witnesses himself admitted
that the land in question is in possession of the petitioners family ,therefore,
there is no occasion to go the informant at the place of occurrence .
-8-
V. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that as per the injury report, the time of
examination of the informant by the doctor is 1.45 P.M. and the

Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 1.00 P.M. but in his evidence
the P.W.4 admitted that after examination by the doctor ,the Fardbeyan of
the informant was recorded.
VI. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that there is serious contradiction in between the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the First Information Report .
VII. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that no any independent witnesses have
supported the prosecution version.
VIII. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that the P.W.8 Investigating Officer of the case
also doubted about the version of the prosecution.
law .
pleased to set
-9-
aside the judgment and order on the point of
sentence dated 11.06 .2009 passed by Sri

Shailendra Kumar Pandey , the learned 6th
Additional Sessions Judge , Muzaffarpur in
Sessions Trial No.479 of 2006 and acquit the
petitioners .
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Sunil Kumar Singh , son of Sri Kapildeo Singh ,
Resident of C.D.A. Colony , Shastri Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Shastri Nagar,
District – Patna.
VERSUS
2. Anju Devi, daughter of Sri Dasarath Singh ,
Resident of Nachhap , P.S. Manjhi ,District – Saran at Chapra.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri P.K. Misra, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the
-2-

dated 09.07.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Patna in Matrimonial Case No.168 of 2007 , whereby and where under the
learned Principal Judge has been pleased to reject the amendment petition
dated 12.11.2008 filed by the petitioner under Order-6 , Rule-17 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in paragraph
no.4 of the matrimonial petition wherein a word “Engineer” has been
inadvertently mentioned in place of “Mechanic” due to misconception of the
learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the learned court
below at the time of filing of the suit .
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order.
3. That, the petitioner had filed a Matrimonial Case No.168 of
2007 in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court , Patna under
Section 13(1) of the marriage act seeking divorce against the Opposite-
party no.2 and declaring the marriage of the petitioner with the Opposite-
-3-
party no.2 be void on the ground that she was cruel , un-
cooperative ,abnormal and was not agreeable with the petitioner even to
share on bed.
Matrimonial Case No.168 of 2007 is
4. That ,the case of the petitioner was that his marriage with the
Opposite-party no.2 was solemnized . After, the marriage, the Opposite-
party no.2 came to petitioner’s house but she never accompanied with the
petitioner even share on the bed and she also did not ready to carry the
father-in-law and mother –in-law though they are on the death bed. It is
further said that the petitioner is a young man and his prime youth is
going to be deserted by the Opposite-party no.2.
5. That, it is stated that the petitioner is in his prime youth and
spending sexless life due to non-association of the Opposite-party no.2.
6. That, it is stated that in paragraph no.4 of the original plaint of
matrimonial case no.168 of 2007 due to misconception of the learned
Advocate appearing on behalf of the learned court below at the time of
filing of the suit ,it is inadvertently mentioned that the petitioner is a
“Computer Engineer” , though the petitioner is a “Computer Mechanic” .
-4-
7. That, it is stated that in fact the petitioner is doing a private job
of Computer Mechanic for maintenance of the Computer on contract basis
in private institution .
8. That, it is stated that when the petitioner has got knowledge
that in the plaint of matrimonial case ,it is wrongly mentioned by the
learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the learned court
below at the time of filing of the suit that the petitioner is a computer
Engineer in place of computer Mechanic then the petitioner filed a
complaint case against the said learned Advocate in the court of learned
District Consumer Forum, Patna being Complaint Case No.376 of 2008
which is pending for disposal by the learned District Consumer Forum .
Complaint Case No.376 of 2008 is
9. That, it is stated that the petitioner filed a petition on
12.11.2008 before the learned Principal Judge ,Family Court, Patna under
Order-6 Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in paragraph no.4 of the plaint
of the matrimonial case because on the fault on the part of the learned
Advocate ,the word “Engineer” is wrongly mentioned in place of
-5-
“Mechanic” though in fact the petitioner is doing the job of computer
Mechanic in the private Institution on the contract basis.

filed by the petitioner on 12.11.2008
10. That, it is stated that in the year 2002 , the petitioner was
appointed as a computer Mechanic by the Director of SCIENCOM POINT
OF EDUCATION ,a registered Institution under Societies Act, 1960 vide
letter dated 15.06.2002 purely on the contract basis on the monthly stipend
of Rs.1100/- per month.
A true photo stat copy of the letter
application.
11. That, it is stated that thereafter the petitioner left the job of
SCIENCOM POINT OF EDUCATION and joined in HONEY DEW
POINT in the year 2005 as a computer Mechanic for repairing of the
computer of the Institution on a monthly stipend of Rs.1300/- per month .
-6-
In this regard a certificate was issued by the Principal of Honey Dew Point
School, Dariyapur Gola ,Patna vide Ref. No.HDPS/09 dated 01.08.2009.

A true photo stat copy of the Ref.
no.HDPS/09 dated 01.08.2009 is
12. That, it is stated that the learned Principal Judge, without
considering the petition filed by the petitioner for amendment in paragraph
no.4 in the main plaint of matrimonial case , has been pleased to reject the
petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 09.07.2009 .
13. That, it is stated that the learned Principal Judge , Family Court
,Patna passed the impugned order merely on the basis of believing the oral
statement of the Opposite-party no.2 and disbelieved the statement of the
petitioner which was filed on oath.
Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case
No.168 of 2007, the above named petitioner begs
other following
GROUNDS:
-7-

II. For that, while rejecting the amendment petition , the learned
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner filed the
amendment petition on oath since the learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the petitioner wrongly placed the fact that the petitioner is a
computer Engineer in place of computer Mechanic.
III. For that, while rejecting the amendment petition , the learned
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that if the petitioner is a
Computer Engineer ,then he must have passed the examination from the
recognized University .
IV. For that, while rejecting the amendment petition , the learned
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that Opposite-party no.2 in his
evidence did not produce any documentary evidence with respect to
qualification of the petitioner as a Computer Engineer.
V. For that, while rejecting the amendment petition , the learned
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that when the petitioner has got
knowledge that on the fault on the part of the learned Advocate ,the word
Engineer has been mentioned in place of Mechanic then he filed a complaint
case against the said learned Advocate in the court of learned District
Consumer Forum which is pending for disposal.
VI. For that, while rejecting the amendment petition , the learned
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner is working
-8-
in a private Institution for maintenance of computer on contract basis from
he only earned a meager amount which is not sufficient for the survival of
the petitioner himself.
VII. For that, while rejecting the amendment petition ,the learned
Principal Judge only believed the oral statement on behalf of the Opposite-
party no.2 and disbelieved the statement of the petitioner which was
submitted on oath with supporting documents.
VIII. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and fit to
be set aside.
pleased to
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna
in Matrimonial Case No.168 of 2007 and allow
the amendment petition filed by the petitioner .
AND/OR
-9-
AN D
During the pendency of this application the further
proceeding of the learned court below may kindly
be stayed.

I.A. NO._____________________/ OF 2009.
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Pramod Kumar Singh ……………………………..……PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and another……….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri P.K. Misra , the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
-2-
is for condonation of delay in filing of the present criminal revision
application against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Divorce Case No.12 of
2002.
2. That, it is stated that since the petitioner is a poor and
unemployed youth and is living his life in frustration after dismissal of the
Divorce Case ,he filed a requisition for obtaining the certified copy on
04.04.2009 ,which was delivered on 20.04.2009.
3. That, thereafter the petitioner was arranging money for firing
of instant Cr. Revision application before this Hon'ble Court which took
some time for the petitioner and ,therefore, he could not prefer this revision
application before this Hon'ble Court in the time because of paucity of
money .
4. That, some how or the other, the petitioner arranged money
and approached his Lawyer on 26.07.2009 and thereafter the revision
application was filed before this Hon'ble Court on 28.07.2009 though the
limitation expired on 20.07.2009.
5. That, after the filing ,the records were returned with defects
that the limitation petition may be filed and the order of the learned Joint
Registrar ( List and Computer) may be obtained for pressing the limitation
petition before the Bench and that Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act
may be stated in the provision of law.
-3-
6. That, because of mistake ,the private clerk of the petitioner’s
Lawyer did not bring to the notice of the petitioner’s lawyer about the return
of the said filing with the aforesaid defects and ,therefore, the steps were not
taken for re-filing of the said Revision application along with the limitation
petition .
7. That, when the petitioner consulted his learned Advocate
about the position of his case on 22.08.2009 and only thereafter this could be
located that the said revision application is yet to be filed with the
petitioner for condonation of limitation in the filing of the instant revision
application .
8. That, there is no intentional latches either on the part of the
petitioner or on the part of the learned Advocate and whole thing has been
happened due to mistake of private Clerk of petitioner’s Lawyer .
9. That, in the facts and circumstances stated hereinbefore ,if the
limitation in filing of the instant revision application is not condoned , the
petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be
compensated in any other manner.
10. That, the petitioner has not filed an application like the present
one earlier before this Hon'ble Court.
Lordship may graciously be pleased to condone
-4-
the delay in filing of the present revision
application .
AND/OR
may deem fit and proper.

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Umesh Thakur , son of Sri Akalu Thakur ,
Resident of village- Ram Nagra , P.S. Riga, District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Gayatri Devi, daughter of Late Kishori Thakur , wife of Umesh Thakur,
Resident of village- Tam Nagra, P.S. Riga, District – Sitamarhi, presently
residing at Harpur Malha , P.S. Bathnaha , District – Sitamarhi.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri P.K. Misra , the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
-2-
dated 01.07.2009 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar , the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Sitamarhi in Maintenance Case No.17 of 2008 , whereby and
where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to direct the
petitioner to make payment of interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month
from the date of filing of the petition dated 01.09.2008.
3. That, the Opposite-party no.2 had filed Maintenance Case
No.17 of 2008 in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Muzaffarpur under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure ,seeking
maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month .
4. That ,the case of the Opposite-party no.2 as spelt out in the
maintenance case is that that her marriage with the petitioner was
solemnized on 09.05.2002 as per Hindu Rites and rituals. The Opposite-

party no.2 alleged that at the time of marriage her father had given cash
Rs.25,000/- ,ornaments and clothes . It is further alleged that from the
wedlock of the petitioner and Opposite-party no.2 a female child was born
-3-
on 09.03.2006 . It is further alleged that after the marriage in-law’s family
started to torture her and stopped her meal and demanded further dowry but
the Opposite-party no.2 always refused for the same . It is further alleged
that ultimately on 30.11.2006 all the accused persons snatched the
ornaments and ousted the Opposite-party no.2 from the house for which the
Opposite-party no.2 filed a complaint case in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi which was registered as Complaint Case
No.1335 of 2006 and the same was sent to the Riga Police- Station and
accordingly Riga P.S. Case no.55 of 2007 was instituted. The Opposite-party
no.2 further alleged that the petitioner is earning 250/- per day as Carpenter
,he is also running a shop of furniture and he has some ancestral property.
5. That, the maintenance case filed by the Opposite-party no.2 in
the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi was registered
as Maintenance Case No.17 of 2008.

6. That, it is stated that after service of the notice , the petitioner
appeared before the learned Principal Judge and filed his written statement
stating therein that he is ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 with full
-4-
dignity and surety but the Opposite-party no.2 herself left the house of the
petitioner on the instance of her parents.
A true photo stat copy of the written
statement filed by the petitioner is
7. That, it is stated that the petitioner is doing the work of
Carpenter in his native village and he has no any shop of furniture.
8. That, it is stated that the petitioner is the only earning member
of his family and he has the liability of his old parents and two school
going minor brothers .
9. That, it is stated that the petitioner had taken loan in the
marriage of his sister on interest and the family condition of the petitioner is
very poor.
10. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 wrong to say that
the petitioner has sufficient ancestral property but in fact about one bighas
land in the name of the father of the petitioner in which most of the land are
unfertile .
11. That, it is stated that in fact the Opposite-party no.2 wanted that
the petitioner left his parents and brother but the petitioner did not do
so ,therefore, the instant petition of maintenance is being filed.
-5-
12. That, the learned Principal Judge vide his impugned order
dated 01.07.2009 was pleased to direct the petitioner to make payment of
interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- without considering the family status of
the petitioner as well as without any proof of the income produced by the
Opposite-party no.2 .
Sri Sanjay Kumar , the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Sitamahri in Maintenance Case
No.17 of 2008, the above named petitioner begs
other following
GROUNDS:
well as on facts.
II. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to appreciate that
the Opposite-party no.2 herself left the house of the petitioner and the
petitioner is ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 with full dignity and
surety .
III. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to appreciate that
Opposite-party no.2 did not produce any evidence about the income as well
as property of the petitioner .
-6-
IV. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to appreciate that
the petitioner is the only earning member of his family and upon the
petitioner there is liability of his parents and two minor brothers, who are
reading in school.
V. For that, the interim maintenance fixed by the learned Principal
Judge is excessive than the income of the petitioner .
VI. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to appreciate that
the petitioner is doing the work of daily wager carpenter on daily wages
basis in his native village and there is no regular income of the petitioner .
VII. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and fit to
be set aside.
pleased to
Sri Sanjay Kumar , the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Sitamahri in Maintenance Case
No.17 of 2008.
AND/OR
-7-
AND
application ,the operation of the impugned order

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Pramod Kumar Singh , son of Sri Srikant Singh ,
Resident of village- Bithuna , P.O. Bithuna , P.S. Basantpur , District –
Siwan.
VERSUS
2. Rima Devi, daughter of Shesh Nath Singh and wife of Pramod Kumar
Singh , resident of village- Paltu Hata, P.O. Paltu Hata , P.S. Jamo Bazar
,District –Siwan.
To,
-2-
judgment and order dated 02.04.2009 passed by Sri Satya Prakash Narain
Singh , the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan in Divorce Case
been pleased to dismiss the divorce petition filed by the petitioner ,seeking
divorce from the Opposite-party no.2.
3. That, the petitioner had filed Divorce Case No.12 of 2002 in
the court of learned District Judge , Siwan seeking divorce against the
Opposite-party no.2 on the ground that she was cruel , un-

cooperative ,abnormal and was not agreeable with the petitioner even to
share on bed.
4. That ,the case of the petitioner was that his marriage with the
Opposite-party no.2 was solemnized on 30.04.1996 . After, the marriage,
the Opposite-party no.2 came to petitioner’s house and had last live with the
petitioner till 25.06.1996 . The petitioner was always pressurized by the
Opposite-party no.2 and her father that the petitioner should live at the
-3-
parental house of the Opposite-party no.2 and settled there permanently
after partition from his father and brothers.
5. That, since the petitioner was not agreeable to the said wishes
of the Opposite-party no.2, the Opposite-party no.2 left her matrimonial
house on 25.06.1996 and went to her parental house ,wherefrom she was
torturing the petitioner and other family members through various means.
6. That, to pressurize the petitioner ,the Opposite-party no.2 filed
a false criminal case against the petitioner and other family members in
which she had made false allegation of demand of dowry , assault and
wrongful confinement etc. which was numbered as Basantpur P.S. Case
No.16 of 2001 on the basis of statement of father of Opposite-party no.2.
Almost all family members of the petitioner were made accused in the said
case.
7. That ,despite the petitioner’s best efforts when the Opposite-
party no.2 was not agreeable to compromise the case, the petitioner as also
the family members surrendered before the court and when they remained
for some time behind the bars ,they were released on bail .
8. That, even after relieve from the custody ,though the petitioner
had tried his best and had made all efforts so that the Opposite-party no.2
may come back to her matrimonial house and the marital life of the
petitioner with the Opposite-party no.2 could be restored ,the Opposite-
party no.2 flatly refused to the pursuation of the petitioner . The well-
-4-
wishers of the locality had also made attempt to solve this problem ,yet the
Opposite-party no.2 was not agreeable to come to her matrimonial house and
live a happy conjugal life with the petitioner .
9. That, in fact the Opposite-party no.2 deserted the petitioner
and though the petitioner was married but he was living a bachelor life
throughout even after his marriage with the Opposite-party no.2.
10. That, since the Opposite-party no.2 was not agreeable to come
to her matrimonial house , the petitioner had no other option but to seek
divorce from the Opposite-party no.2 and had ,therefore, filed the instant
Divorce Case No.12 of 2002 in the court of learned District Judge , Siwan
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Divorce Case No.12 of 2002 is

11. That, on notice ,the Opposite-party no.2 appeared and filed her
show-cause ,denying the allegations made in the divorce petition and had
made allegation against the petitioner and the family members about the
cruelty and had also stated that the petitioner has illicit concern with the
sister of his brother’s wife but no where she had stated in her show-cause
-5-
that she is ready to live with the petitioner and would co-operate him in all
walks of life.
A true photo stat copy of the show-
cause filed by the Opposite-party no.2
12. That, during the pendency of divorce case , a petition under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of expenses of litigation at
the rate of Rs.1000/- per month since 07.02.2004 and the petitioner had
filed his rejoinder to the said application of the Opposite-party no.2.
True photo stat copies of the petition
under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act and rejoinder filed on

behalf of the petitioner are annexed
ANNEXURE- “3” and “4” of this
application.
13. That, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the
learned Principal Judge had framed six different issues for determination in
the case and in support of their respective case , the parties were directed to
lead their oral and documentary evidence . On behalf of the petitioner seven
-6-
witnesses were examined and on behalf of the Opposite-party no.2 six
witnesses were examined.
14. That, only because the petitioner failed to comply the
conditions of compromise arrived at in between the parties in the criminal
case filed by the father of the Opposite-party no.2 for the offence under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code ,the learned Principal Judge vide
his impugned judgment and order dated 02.04.2009 was pleased to dismiss
the divorce case filed by the petitioner .
Sri Satya Prakash Narain Singh , the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan in Divorce
Case No.12 of 2002, the above named petitioner

the other following
GROUNDS:
well as on facts.
II. For that, while dismissing the divorce case, the learned
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that the Opposite-party no.2 in
place of making attempt for restoration of a happy conjugal life ,became
aggressive and on her instigation her father filed a false case against the
-7-
petitioner and other family members alleging offences under Section 498A
III. For that, while dismissing the divorce case, the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that even if there was a compromise in
the said criminal case ,the Opposite-party no.2 should have come to her
matrimonial house and would have lived there with the petitioner which
would have helped him in restoration of her conjugal life but she did not
come to live with the petitioner and was fighting for the money which was
also a term of compromise in the criminal case.
IV. For that, while dismissing the divorce case, the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the terms of compromise in the
criminal case was not intended for the restitution of conjugal life .
According to the terms of compromise in the criminal case, the petitioner

was supposed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Opposite-party no.2 and Rs.500/- per
month.
V. For that, while dismissing the divorce case, the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that after the criminal case ended in
compromise ,the Opposite-party no.2 never made a grievance that no one
had come to take the Opposite-party no.2 back to her matrimonial
house ,however in her evidence in the divorce case, she had complained that
the terms of compromise in criminal case never fulfilled by the petitioner .
-8-
VI. For that, while dismissing the divorce case, the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that grant of compensation or on
payment of Rs.500/- per month to the Opposite-party no.2 and the
subsequent conduct of petitioner while not paying the said amount to the
Opposite-party no.2 cannot be taken as a ground for dismissal of a divorce
case if the parties to the divorce case are not agreeable to live together , the
only way out is their separation through a divorce case and the Opposite-
party no.2 would have been awarded certain amount for her maintenance
after the divorce since a divorced wife is also entitled to maintenance from
the husband as the factum of marriage was on admitted fact in the case.
VII. For that, while dismissing the divorce case, the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that if the parties are not agreeable to
live together and the divorce case is dismissed both of them would equally
suffer since they cannot take a decision to marry with other for the
remaining period of his life.
law .
pleased to
-9-
set aside the judgment and order dated
02.04.2009 passed by Sri Satya Prakash Narain
Singh , the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Siwan in Divorce Case No.12 of 2002 and allow
the divorce petition filed by the petitioner .
AND/OR

I.A. NO.______________________/OF 2009 (LIMITATION)
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
AND
In the matter of :-
Raj Kishore Yadav …………………. …………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and others ………….……OPPOSITE -PARTIES.

To,
-2-
is for condonation of delay in filing of the present revision
application ,which is being filed against the judgment dated 02.04.2009 and
order dated 07.04.2009 which was expired on 06.06.2009 .
2. That, it is stated that the petitioner is an old man , he has got no
knowledge about the limitation period for filing of the criminal revision
application and he is under the impression that the limitation period for
filing of the criminal revision application is 90 days which is to be expired
on 06.07.2009.
3. That, it is stated that after being arranged the money he
contacted the lawyer after summer vacation i.e. the last week of June, 2009
thereafter the present criminal revision application is being filed .
4. That, it is stated that there is no intentional latches either on the
part of the petitioner or on the part of his counsel and whole thing has been
happened due to aforesaid bonafide reason.

Lordship may graciously be pleased to condone
the delay in filing of the present revision
application.
AND/OR
-3-

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Raj Kishore Yadav, son of Munga Lal Yadav ,
Resident of village- Sirsiya ,P.S. Bela , District – Sitamarhi.

VERSUS
2. Purshottam Chaurasia, son of
3. Raj Kishore Rai ,son of Mauje Rai
Both resident of village- Srisiya , P.S. Bela , District –
Sitamarhi.
To,
-2-
judgment dated 02.04.2009 and order dated 07.04.2009 so far it relates to
the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 passed by Sri Ram Prakash Choubey , the
learned Assistant District & Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court no.3 ,
Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.513 of 2006/ 29 of 2008 arising out of Bela
P.S. Case No.34 of 2005 registered for the offences under Sections
302/109,120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms

Act , whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge
was pleased to acquit the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 from the aforesaid
charges leveled against them on the ground that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the charges against the Opposite-party nos. 2
and 3.
Court earlier against the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2009 and order
dated 07.04.2009.
Report in brief is that the informant Raj Kishore Yadav gave his Fardbeyan
-3-
before the S.I. Sri S.K. Singh of Bela Police –Station at 1.30 A.M. at Khaki
Bab Matha , village- Sirsia ,P.S.Bela, District – Sitamarhi on 10.09.2005
stating therein that in the night of 09.09.2005 ,he was sleeping in his house
and he heard on loud sepaker that Binay Mukhiya was shot dead at the said
Math . He rushed to that Math and where many persons assembled there.
He saw that his son Binay Mukhiya was lying at the Math poured with
blood . Priest of said Math Sitaram Das and Sikandar Mandal were weeping
loudly saying that Ram Kishore Rai and others killed Mukhiaji . It is further
said that Sita Ram Das and Sikandar Rai told him that Ram Kishore Rai ,
Ram Pravesh Mahto and Vaidehi Mahto came on red colour motorcycle at
the Math at 9 P.M. and saw Mukhiyaji and went away and said Binay
Mukhiaji (deceased ) went to attend Panchayati at 9.30 P.M. and returned at

the Math at 11.30 P.M. and sat on a Chowki and started to eat Roti –
Bhujia . It is further said that in the mean time five persons armed with
pistol and torch came there and called Mukhiyaji on which Mukhiyaji came
before them and after seeing them ,he returned back but Ram Kishore Rai
fired from his pistol which hit on the arm of Mukhiyaji . It is further said
that Mukhiyaji tried to flee from there but acused Rajiv Kumar fired from
his gun which hit on the cheek and Mukhiyaji fell down after receiving gun
shot injuries. It is further said that accused Ashoka Kumar Rai came near
Mukhiyaji and fired from his gun . Ram Pravesh Mahto and Vaidehi Mahto
also came there and told other persons to remove back on which all the
-4-
accused persons went away by foot. It is further said that on that time one
Petromax and two lantern were lighting in which light they identified the
accused persons . It is further said that motive behind the occurrence is that
accused Raj Kishore Raicontested with Vinay Mukhiyaji (deceased ) in
election of Mukhiya in which Vinay Mukhiya defeated him and there is
also land dispute between them from before. It is further said that
Mukhiyaji always told the villagers regarding threatening of Raj Kishore
Rai @ Motemal . Purshottam Chaurasiya is a rich man of the village and he
had annoyed with Mukhiyaji and Mukhiyaji always protested said
Purshottam Chaurasia and due to that annoyance , Mukhiyaji was killed by
the accused persons with conspiracy to each other.

the Investigating Officer , the Police submitted charge-sheet against six
named accused persons including the Opposite-party no.3 except the
Opposite-party no. 2 under Sections 302/109,120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act .
-5-
against all seven accused persons including the Opposite-party nos. 2 and
3 also under the same Section after going through the material available in
the case-diary .
committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 22.08.2006 for its
disposal and the charges were framed against all the accused persons
including the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 under Sections
302/109,120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act .

P.W.1 : Sita Ram Das
P.W.2 :Sikandar Mandal
P.W.3 : Jiwachh Paswan
P.W.4 : Hari Ram
P.W.5 : Rajdhir Yadav
P.W.6 :Dev Narayan Rai
P.W.7 : Ram Shrestha Das
P.W.8 : Bindeshwar Rai
P.W.9 :Raj Kishore Yadav, informant and father of the deceased
P.W.10 : Dr. Arjun Kumar Chaudhary who conducted Post –Mortem
examination.
-6-
P.W.11. :Sunil Kumar Singh ,Investigating Officer of the case
P.W.12 :P.W.12 , who is the formal witness
altogether 13 documentary evidences out of his oral evidence.
11. That, it is stated that P.W. 3 specifically deposed in his
deposition that on the date of occurrence in the night at 7.30/7.45 P.M. he
was coming from the Math of Khaki Bab towards his house and when he
reached near the house of Purshottam Ji ( Opposite-party no.2) ,some were
talking that – “ 15 LAKH RUPAYA LOI APP LOG JAKAR KAM BAN
LENA ,KISI TARAH Section MUKHIYA BUCH NAHI PAYE”. He
further deposed in his deposition that he saw Raj Kishore Rai (Opposite-
party no.3) , Purshottam Chaurasia (Opposite-party No.2), Dr. Raghvesh ,
Ram Babu Sah , Ashoka, Rajiv , Ram Pravesh and Vaidehi came from the
courtyard of Purshottam Ji ( Opposite-party no.2) and Rambabu was lighting
from the lantern.
12. That, from perusal of the aforesaid deposition of P.W.3 ,it is
apparent that the house of Opposite-party no.2 is the meeting of all the
accused persons ,where the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 hatched up the plan
for committing the murder of the deceased.
-7-
13. That, it is stated that P.W.7 specifically deposed in his
deposition that prior to 6-7 days of the occurrence the deceased had talked
with the P.W.7 in which the deceased suspected that Opposite-party nos.2
and 3 be killed him.
14. That, it is also admitted position that the Opposite-party no.3 is
the contestant for the post of Mukhiya in which the deceased defeated the
Opposite-party no.3 ,which is annoyance for the Opposite-party
no.3 ,therefore, there is occasion for the Opposite-party no.3 to hatch up the
plan for killing the deceased.
15. That, it is stated that the P.W.9 ,the informant had also
supported the version of P.W.7 in his deposition that he was informed by the
witnesses a meeting was organized in the house of Opposite-party no.2 for
killing the deceased .
16. That, from perusal of the deposition of the witnesses of the
case, it is apparent that in the murder of the deceased the Opposite-party
nos.2 and 3 are the vital roll and they are main conspirator .
consideration ,the consistent evidence of the P.W.3, 7and 9 who specifically
said that the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 are the main conspirator and in the
house of Opposite-party no.2 the conspiracy was made for committing the
murder of the deceased , acquitted the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 from the
charges.
-8-
of judgment dated 02.04.2009 and order dated
07.04.2009 so far it relates to the Opposite-party
nos. 2 and 3 passed by Sri Ram Prakash
Choubey , the learned Assistant District &
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court no.3 , Sitamarhi
in Sessions Trial No.513 of 2006/ 29 of 2008
arising out of Bela P.S. Case No.34 of 2005 , the
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2009 and order
dated 07.04.2009 is bad in law as well as on facts.
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.3, 7and 9 in their
evidence specifically said that the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 are the main
conspirator and in the house of Opposite-party no.2 the conspiracy was
made for committing the murder of the deceased .
III. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.3 is the
contestant for the post of Mukhiya in which the Opposite-party no.3 was
-9-
defeated by the deceased, which is occasion for making conspiracy for
killing the deceased .
IV. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3, the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that it is admitted fact that there is
admitted land dispute and political rivalary with the Opposite-party nos. 2
and 3 from the deceased .
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.3 in his deposition
consistently said that when he was crossing from the house of the Opposite-
party no.2 he heard the talking about the murder of the deceased.
witnesses consistently support the contents of the prosecution version .
law .
pleased to set
-10-
aside the part of judgment dated 02.04.2009 and
order dated 07.04.2009 so far it relates to the
Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 passed by Sri Ram
Prakash Choubey , the learned Assistant District
& Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court no.3 ,
2008 arising out of Bela P.S. Case No.34 of 2005

and convict the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 for
the charges leveled against them .
AND/OR
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
1. Nagendra Prasad Yadav, son of Late Meghu Yadav,
Resident of village- Mahaddipur , P.S. Kashim Bazar , District – Munger.
2. Ganesh Prasad Yadav, son of Late Sanichar Yadav,
Resident of Mohalla – Nayagaon , P.S. East Colony , District – Munger.
……………………PETITIONERS
VERSUS
2. The Range Officer of Forest, Dharhara ,
Munger Forest Division, Munger.
To,
-2-
dated 27th February, 2009 passed in Cr. Revision No.177 of 2006 by the
learned Sri Parshuram Shukla , Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track

Court No.1, Munger , arising out of order dated 04.07.22006 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger in East Colony P.S. Case No.04
of 2006, G .R. No. 214 of 2006 ,whereby and where under the learned
Revisional Court set aside the order dated 04.07.2006 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger and allowed the aforesaid Cr. Rev.
No.177 of 2006.
2. That, the petitioners never moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned order dated 27.02.2009.
3. That, it is very much important to mention the brief facts of
the case which was lodged by one Assistant Sub-Inspector Prem Nath
Jha ,stating interalia that on 09.02.2006 at about 10.30 A.M. when the
informant was going for investigation with regard to East Colony P.S. Case
No.49 of 2005 along with the Inspector of Police and when they were
returning at
-3-
about 11.45 A.M. they saw a loaded Tractor with boulders as well as two
Tractors also and one Truck reached near the place of occurrence and all
the four vehicles were stopped by the said informant on the order of
Inspector of Police and after being asked the requisite documents then the
Drivers of all vehicles went to bring the documents and thereafter they
managed to flee away. The informant said that all the boulders are the
property of forest and all the vehicles and boulders were seized before the
two witnesses and lodged the case for offence under Section 379 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4/40 of the Bihar Minor Minerals Act and
Section 26,41,42,33 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act.
copy of the F.I.R. of East Colony
Jamalpur P.S. Case No.4 of 2006 is
4. That, after lodging the First Information Report ,the case has
been meticulously investigated by the Investigating Officer and the
supervising authority such as Sub- Divisional Police Officer , Jamalpur as
well as the Superintendent of Police , Munger supervised the case and it has
been mentioned in the supervision note itself that the aforesaid case is found
to be true under Section 4/40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Act and other
Sections as mentioned in the First Information Report such as Section 379
-4-
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 26,41,42,33 and 52 of the Indian
Forest Act are not applicable in the case and the same was confirmed by the
Superintendent of Police , Munger through its supervision note vide memo
no.796 CR dated 28.02.2006 . The supervising authority meticulously
scrutinized all the documents with regard to seized boulders as well as the
vehicle in question such as owner book , prepaid challan , tax token etc.
5. That, the petitioners ,who are the owners of the seized vehicles
and materials loaded thereon filed their petitions before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate , Munger for release of their vehicles and on different
dates and the requisite documents of the vehicle as well as the material
loaded thereon were produced before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate , Munger itself and thereafter a report was called for from the
Mining Officer, Munger, Divisional Forest Officer , Munger, District
Transport Officer, Munger and the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned
Police- Station with its case-diary in respect of this case and according the
Assistant Mining Officer ,Munger submitted report and thereafter the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the entire documents of the
vehicle in question as well as seized boulders on the said record but it is
very much important to mention here that neither the Investigating Officer of
the case nor the Officer-in-Charge concerned reported the Divisional
Forest Officer to initiate a proceeding of alleged confiscation when the
petitioners and other vehicle owners filed their petitions for release the
vehicle in question
-5-
thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger called for report
to all concerned including the Divisional Forest Officer and thereafter the
Divisional Forest Officer illegally initiated the confiscation proceeding
without fulfilling the criteria of the confiscation proceeding.
6. That, though the case was not found to be true for several
offences of the Indian Forest Act as mentioned in the First Information
Report because the valid transportation challan of the boulders in question

have been submitted before the Police Officer concerned as well as before
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger itself. In this way
case does not comes under the offence punishable under Section
26,41,42,33 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act and the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate rightly and legally released the vehicle provisionally vide order
dated 04.07.2006 because the case was under investigation.
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,
Munger is annexed herewith and
application.
7. That, after thorough investigation made by the Investigating
Officer , he submitted charge-sheet bearing Charge-Sheet No.40 of 2006
dated 31.10.2006 for the offences under Section 4/40 of the Bihar Minor
-6-
Minerals Act and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Munger as per the
supervision note as well as the requisite documents produced by the owners
of the vehicle rightly released the vehicles in favour of their respective
owners.
copy of the Charge-sheet No.40 of

8. That, the revisionist filed the Cr. Rev. No.177 of 2006 against
the order dated 04.07.2006 without any rhyme and reason though it is
apparent from perusal of Government Circular that there is no any
demarcation in between the Forest Area and the area of Mines . The learned
Revisional Court did not take into consideration as to whether the
confiscation proceeding in respect of seized vehicles and boulders is
genuine ,legal or under the jurisdiction of the Divisional Forest Officer or
not. The Officials of the Forest Department as well as the Police Officer
did not follow the procedure mentioned in Sub- Clause-4 of Section -52 of
the Indian Forest Act ( Bihar Amendment Act 9 of 1990 ) . Apart from this
the Officer-in-Charge as well as the informant has not occasion or reason to
believe that a forest offence has been committed by the petitioners . In this
way the entire case is fit to be quashed and the order impugned is fit to be set
-7-
aside and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly released the
vehicle personally which is fit to be confirmed .
dated 27th February, 2009 passed in Cr. Revision
No.177 of 2006 by the learned Sri Parshuram
Shukla , Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track
Court No.1, Munger, the above named petitioners

beg to prefer this revision application on amongst
the other following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts .
II. For that, the learned Revisional Court did not pass any
speaking and reasoned order by controverting the contention as well as the
submission made by the petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate , Munger and it is cryptic order and the order of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate is fit to be set aside.
III. For that, the learned Revisional Court illegally allowed the
aforesaid revision application and erred in passing his order with regard to
initiation of confiscation proceeding though the provisions of sub- Section
4 of Section -52 has not been fully complied with and it is wrong to say that
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the offence
punishable under Section 26,41,42,33 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act.
-8-
IV. For that ,there is no question for proceeding of confiscation
where the charge-sheet has not been submitted under Section 26,41,42,33
and 52 of the Indian Forest Act rather the charge-sheet has been submitted
under Section 4/40 of Bihar Minor Minerals Act and for that requisite
documents have been produced by the petitioners in the learned court
below as well as the Police Officer and so far the place of excavation is
concerned ,the Officers of the Forest Department does not able to show as
from where the excavation was made and the place of excavation of the
stone comes under the jurisdiction of Forest Area or not .In this way the
entire submission of the revisonist is frivolous and misconceived but the
learned Revisional Court illegally set aside the order passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger and allowed the revision application
which is fit to be set aside.
V. For that, it is apparent from perusal of the order dated
04.07.2006 that no intimation letter either sent by the police Officer or by
the Officials of the Forest Department upon which the confiscation
proceeding was initiated rather it was apparent on being asked to submit the
report by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger ,the Officers of
the Forest Department illegally initiated confiscation proceeding without
following the procedure of said proceeding in accordance with law hence the
entire impugned order is bad in law and on fact and unwarranted in the eye
of law and the same is fit to be set aside.
-9-
pleased to set aside the order dated 27 th February,
2009 passed in Cr. Revision No.177 of 2006 by

the learned Sri Parshuram Shukla , Additional
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.1, Munger
and upheld the order dated 04.07.2006 passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger.
AND/OR
AND
During the pendency of this application, the
operation of the impugned order may kindly be
stayed.
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.

Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Mahendra Ram, son of Late Gulam Ram ,
Resident of village- Panchgachhiya , P.S. Bathnaha , District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Batahoo Mahto, son of Chhedi Mahto ,
3. Kaushalya Devi, wife of Chhedi Mahto,
Resident of village- Panchgachhiya, P.S. Bathnaha , District –
Sitamarhi.
To,
-2-
The Hon’ble Shri J.B. Koshy, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the

and order dated 31st March ,2009 passed by Shri Bhim Shankar Lal , the
learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.314 of
2003/ 06 of 2004 arising out of Bathnaha P.S. Case No.45 of 1997 for the
offences under Sections 366 ,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code , whereby
and where under the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was pleased to
acquit the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 from the charges leveled against
them under Sections 366 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the point
of contradiction in manner of occurrence , place of occurrence and time of
occurrence .
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 31 st March ,
2009.
3. That, on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner
(informant ) in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,Sitamarhi ,
subsequent it was sent to the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of
-3-
the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Police- Station for institution and
investigation of the case , Bathnaha P.S. Case No.45 of 1997 was
registered in Bathnaha Police – Station for the offences under Sections
120B,364,367m368, 379,384,323 of the Indian Penal Code .

4. That, the prosecution case ,in short , is that the marriage of the
petitioner (informant ) was solemnized with Lila Devi ,daughter of
Ramchandra Ram about four years ago . It is further said that after the
marriage , the witness no.1 came to his house and after leaving with husband
and wife . The accused persons are the co-villagers of the informant and
were in visiting term and also made joke with the wife of the informant . It
is further said that after some time the informant became unable to bear
such joke then one day he threatened and ousted but the accused no.2 who
is a bad character keeping himself in a hidden position and started meeting
with the wife of the informant . It is further said that on the date of
occurrence when the wife of the informant came out from her house for
natural call then accused no.1 and 2 who were present there according to
their plan taken the bag of the wife of the informant containing
cash ,ornaments and clothes and according to their plan , they had taken
away the wife of the informant and till date she is traceless. It is further
said that on the date of occurrence informant went to his Sasural village –
Bokhara and told everything to his father-in-law then father –in-law of the
informant came at village – Panchgachhiya and went to the house of
accused no.1 then
-4-
replied that his daughter is living in his house from two days and today his
daughter has gone to Railway Station where he boarded in the train and
thereafter where she had gone he cannot say . It is further said that when
the witness no.1 told this fact to the informant then informant went to the
house of the accused persons and quarried that why you have kept his wife
2 days and not informed him ,it show that you have kept her or killer her. It
is further said that the informant threatened that he is going to file a case
against them then accused persons caught hold the informant and tied in
the pillars and also assaulted with fists and slaps and taken thumb
impression on plain paper and left the informant . It is further said that
thereafter the informant started searching to her wife but he did not find
any information then on 06.09.1997 the informant had given written report
to the Police Station but the Police did not take any action then the informant
filed complaint case.
Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 366 and 379 of the Indian Penal
Code .
-5-
police , the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the Opposite-party

nos. 2 and 3 under the same Section after going through the material
available in the case-diary .
committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 02.07.2003 passed by
Sri D.N.Singh , the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Sitamarhi for its
disposal and the charges were framed against the Opposite-party nos. 2 and
under Section 366, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code .
altogether eight witnesses such as :-
P.W.1 : Bijendra Ram
P.W.2 :Sone Lal Baitha
P.W.3 : Bhikhari Ram
P.W.4 : Indal Ram
P.W.5 : Shambhu Sharan Jha
P.W.6 :Sri Chandra Ram
P.W.7 : Mahendra Ram , informant himself
P.W.8 : Chandrika Paswan
-6-
11. That, it is admitted fact that the wife of the informant namely
Lila Devi is still traceless .

12. That, it is stated that all the prosecution witnesses said in his
evidence before the court that they saw the wife of the informant (victim )
with the accused persons during the course of taking away the victim .
13. That, it is stated that since the prosecution witnesses are
illiterate persons ,therefore, it is obvious that there is some differences in
between the date and time of occurrence since the date of occurrence was 11
years old .
14. That, it is stated that it is admitted fact that the accused persons
are the co-villager of the informant and the accused persons were visiting
term with the wife of the informant (victim ) ,therefore, the witnesses did
not protest them ,since they had no knowledge about the conspiracy hatched
by the accused persons.
judgment and order dated 31st March ,2009
passed by Shri Bhim Shankar Lal , the learned 1 st
Assistant Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi in Sessions
Trial No.314 of 2003/ 06 of 2004 arising out of
Bathnaha P.S. Case No.45 of 1997 , the above
-7-
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned judgment and order dated 31.03..2009
is bad in law as well as on facts.
learned trial court failed to appreciate that all the prosecution witnesses
have said in his deposition that they saw the victim (wife of the informant )
during the course of taking away by the accused persons .
III. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that till the date the victim is
traceless and lastly the victim was seen with the accused persons, which is
admitted by all the prosecution witnesses.
IV. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that it is admitted fact that the
accused persons are the co-villager and visiting term with the wife of the
informant (victim ) .
learned trial court ought to have considered that there is differences
regarding the date of the occurrence in the deposition of the witnesses ,it is
obvious that there is some differences since prosecution witnesses are the
illiterate persons and the date of occurrence is about 11 years old.
VI. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court ought to have considered that regarding the time and
-8-
place of occurrence , it is obvious that the prosecution witnesses had seen
the victim with the accused persons at the different time and different places
during the course of taking away the victim.
VII. For that , the learned trial failed to consider the material
VIII. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
law .
pleased to set aside the judgment and order
dated 31st March ,2009 passed by Shri Bhim
Shankar Lal , the learned 1st Assistant Sessions
Judge , Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.314 of
2003/ 06 of 2004 arising out of Bathnaha P.S. Case
No.45 of 1997 and convict the Opposite-party nos.
2 and 3 for the charges leveled against them .

-9-
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Baijnath Thakur , son of Late Bilas Thakur ,
Resident of village- Madhopur Anant , P.S. Sheohar , District – Sheohar.
VERSUS
2. Ram Niranjan Thakur ,son of Late Moh Narayan Thakur,
3. Maha Shankar Thakur , son of Late Moh Narayan Thakur,
4. Ram Darshan Thakur , son of Late Moh Narayan Thakur,
5. Ram Ayodhya Thakur , son of Late Moh Narayan Thakur,
6. Shyam Shankar Thakur , son of Late Moh Narayan Thakur,
7. Mintu Thakur @ Dilip Thakur , son of Ram Darshan Thakur ,

8. Prahalad Singh , son of Bindi Singh ,
-2-
All resident of village- Madhopur Anant , P.S.
Sheohar, District – Sheohar.
To,
and order dated 10th February ,2009 passed by Shri Pradip Kumar Neogy ,
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.1,
Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.432 of 2007/ 87 of 2007 arising
out of Sheohar P.S. Case No.73 of 2006 dated 14.06.2006 registered for the
offences under Section 285,436, 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code ,
whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
pleased to acquit the Opposite-party nos.2 to 8 from the charges leveled
against them under Sections 285, 436 and 436/34 of the Indian Penal Code
in absence of evidence.
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 10th
-3-
February , 2009.
3. That, on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the petitioner
(informant ) , Sheohar P.S. Case No.73 of 2006 dated 14.06.2006 was
registered in Sheohar Police – Station for the offences under Sections
285,436,427/34 of the Indian Penal Code .
4. That, the prosecution case ,in short , is that on 13.06.2006 in
the evening hen he was returned at his village- Madhopur Anant and after
that he went to the house of Shiv Shankar Thakur for sleeping on the upper
floor of the said house at 11.00 P.M. It is further said that accused Ram
Niranjan Thakur , Ram Darshan Thakur both having a Spray Machine in
their hands and they sprinkled petrol to his house . It is further said that
Mahashankar Thakur and Ram Ayodhya Thakur set fire from westerh
south corner through match box . It is further said that Shyam Shankar
Thakur , Purushottam Thakur , Chandan Thakur , Prahalad Singh caught
him and tired to throw in the said fire burning house and in the mean time
persons of the locality assembled there and save the life of the informant . It
is further said that due to fire all the articles lying in his house was burnt
and converted into ashes . It is further said that the occurrence was
witnessed by the persons of the locality . The motive behind the occurrence
is that there was a land dispute in between the accused persons and the
informant and a case is going on between both the parties in the Civil Court,
Sitamarhi and accused persons tried to dispossess him from the said land.
-4-
5. That, it is stated that after information about the occurrence ,
the police arrived at the place of occurrence and the police seized half burnt
bamboo and some ashes and prepared a seizure list in presence of two
witnesses namely Hari Shankar Thakur and Baijnath Thakur on 14.06.2006
at 1 P.M.
Opposite-party nos. 2 to 8 under Sections 285, 436, 427/34 of the Indian
Penal Code .
police , the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sheohar took
cognizance against the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 8 under the same Section
after going through the material available in the case-diary .
committed to the court of Sessions for its disposal and the charges were
framed against the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 8 under Section 285, 436 and
436 /34 of the Indian Penal Code .
altogether five witnesses such as :-
P.W.1 :Babita Devi , daughter –in-law of the informant .

P.W.2 :Indu Devi, wife of the informant
P.W.3 :Surendra Singh , villager of the informant
-5-
P.W.4 : Baijnath Thakur , informant himself
P.W.5 : Rameshwar Singh , Investigating Officer of the case /
10. That, all the prosecution witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution had fully supported the prosecution case .
11. That, apart from the oral evidence on behalf of the
prosecution ,five exhibits were also filed such as :-
Ext.1 :Signature of the informant on Fardbeyan .
Ext.1/1 :Fardbeyan
Ext.2 :Signature of witness on seizure list
Ext. 2/1 :Seizure list
Ext.3 :Formal First Information Report
12. That, it is admitted fact by the both the parties that there is land
dispute between the parties ,therefore, it is occasion by the Opposite-party
nos. 2 to 8 to set fire the house of the informant (petitioner ).
13. That, it is stated that the P.W.4 in his deposition specifically
said that he saw from the roof of Shiv Shankar Thakur, where he was
sleeping that the accused persons was setting fire in his house by sprinkling
petrol.
14. That, it is stated that the P.W.5 Investigating Officer of the case
in his deposition admitted that after the occurrence he went to the place of
occurrence and seized the half burnt bamboo and ashes from the place of
occurrence and he also supported the contents of the seizure list.
-6
judgment and order dated 10th February ,2009
passed by Shri Pradip Kumar Neogy , the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge , Fast
Track Court No.1, Sheohar at Sitamarhi in
Sessions Trial No.432 of 2007/ 87 of 2007, the
following
GROUNDS:
II. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 8 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the informant P.W.4 of the case
specifically admitted in his deposition that he saw from the roof that the
accused persons were setting fire in his house.
III. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 8 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.5 Investigating Officer
of the case admitted in his deposition that after the occurrence he went to the
place of occurrence and seized half built bamboo and ashes from the place
of occurrence and accordingly prepared a seizure list.
-7-
IV. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 8 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that it is admitted fact by the
defense as well as the prosecution , there is land dispute is going
on ,therefore, there was occasion for the accused persons to set fire in the
house of the informant.
V. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 8 , the
learned trial court ought to have considered that there is differences in
between the statement of the P.W.1 , P.W.2 and P.W.4 , it is natural for
some differences in between their statement since the P.W.1 ,P.W.2 saw
the occurrence inside the house whereas P.W.4 saw the occurrence from the
roof .
VI. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 8 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the independent witness P.W.3
also admitted in his deposition that after hulla ,he went at the place of
occurrence where he saw the house of the informant in burning
condition ,where the informant said that the accused persons have come and
set to fire in his house .

VII. For that , the learned trial failed to consider the material
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 8 from the
VIII. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
-8-
law .
pleased to set aside the judgment and order
dated 10th February ,2009 passed by Shri Pradip
Kumar Neogy , the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.1,
Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.432 of
nos. 2 to 8 for the charges leveled against them .
AND/OR
(PETITIONER IN JAIL)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA.
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION )
Cr. Rev. NO. __________________________/OF 2009.
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Bhajan Singh, son of Jai Jai Ram Singh ,

Resident of village- Jhaua Bahiyar , P.S. Bariyarpur , District – Munger.
………….………….. ……. PETITIONER.
VERSUS.
The State of Bihar……………………………… OPPOSITE-PARTY
To,
The Hon’ble Shri J.B. Koshy , the Hon'ble Chief Justice
of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and His Lordship’s
Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble High Court .
-2-
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH :-
and order dated 24th March, 2009 passed by learned Sri Madhusudan Singh
, the learned Sessions Judge , Munger in Cr. Appeal No.07 of 2009 ,
arising out of order dated 06.01.2009 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Munger in G.R. Case No.1163A /2008 , Bariyarpur P.S. Case No.58
of 2008 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge ,Munger
refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail by dismissing the appeal and
confirmed the order dated 06.01.2009 passed by learned Juvenile Justice
Board , Munger in G.R. Case No.1163 A of 2008.

Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order .
Report ,in brief, is that the informant Hari Nandan Prasad Singh gave his
Fardbeyan on 18.07.2008 at about 8.30 A.M. before the Officer-in-Charge of
Bariyarpur Police –Station ,stating interalia that on 17.07.2008 at about 3
P.M. , when the informant along with his brother , nephew and mother of
nephew were coming by spreading fertilizer then in the way near the BASA
of Parmanand Singh the accused persons including this petitioner were
hiding themselves , all of them apprehended and surrounded and caught the
-3-
brother and nephew of the informant and one accused Vidyanand ordered to
kill him upon which Jairam , Sadanand shot fire on the temple of Rohit
Singh ,brother of the informant and thereafter Arbind and Jarbind opened
fire by putting pistol on the chest and jaw upon the nephew of the informant
Lalan Singh . It is further alleged that after raising alarm some accused
persons including this petitioner assaulted the mother of nephew of the
informant and thereafter some persons assaulted there. The cause behind
the occurrence is some piece of land measuring 8 Kathas for which some
land litigation is going on and after being hold Panchayati the accused
persons namely Jai Ram Singh did not ready to pacify the matter.
4. That, on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant namely
Hari Nandan Prasad Singh , the instant case was lodged bearing Bariyarpur
P.S. Case No.58 of 2008 dated 18.07.2008 for offences under Sections
147,148,149,341, 323, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27
of the Arms Act.
copy of the F.I.R. of Bariyarpur P.S.
Case No. 58 of 2008 is annexed
5. That, the petitioner is minor boy and the Medical Board has
opined his age in between 16 to 17 years and exactly the Board has
-4-
assessed the age of the petitioner as 16 years 7 months and 9 days on the
date of occurrence and so far the allegation part is concerned ,therefore,
there is no any specific overtact has been attributed to this petitioner ,rather
some persons such as petitioner , Mantu , Bhusan and Arun assaulted the
mother of Lalan namely Sheela Devi and brother of the informant
Bhogendra Singh @ Bhogi Singh with Lathi and Danda.
copy of the order dated 23.12.2008
Board is annexed herewith and
application.
6. That, having seen the injury report of Bhogendra Singh @
Bhogi ,the doctor did not find any injury on the portion of Bhogendra
Singh and also two simple injury such as swelling on left fore arm was
found on the portion of Sheela Devi and there are four accused persons
having armed with Lathi assaulted both the so-called injured persons and
the report falsify the prosecution case entirely . Apart from this the injured
Sheela Devi was examined on 18.07.2008 and occurrence is of 17.07.2008
at 3 P.M. but the doctor has mentioned in the injury report the period of
injury is only six hours. The informant with a view to harass the family of
-5-
the petitioner tagged the name of each and every member of his family
including this minor petitioner .
copies of the Injury Report of Sheela
Devi and Bhogendra Singh @ Bhogi
are annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE- “3” and “3A” to this
application.
7. That, the First Information Report was instituted by the
informant with ulterior motive because there is land dispute between the
parties and the occurrence took place some other manner but the entire
family member of the petitioner have been made accused in this case.
8. That, apart from this the injured namely Sheela Devi is not the
eye witness rather she is working in her filed and after finishing the
mechanism of the occurrence , he rushed on the place of occurrence and
found the deceased as dead . Apart from this almost all paragraphs of the
case-diary ,in which the statement of witnesses have been recorded as
hearsay evidence such as paragraph nos. 10,15 and 16 etc.
9. That, in this case , similarly situated persons , though he is
major has been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No. 49480 of 2008 on 05.02.2009
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharnidhar Jha on the ground that there is no
specific allegation against him.
-6-
dated 05.02.2009 passed in Cr. Misc.
10. That it is very much important to mention here that the entire
case is false and fabricated and after thought because the date of occurrence
is 17.07.2008 at 3 P.M. and the information was given to the concerned
police on the same day i.e. 17.07.2008 at 5 P.M. but the First Information
Report was lodged on next date i.e. 18.07.2008 at 4 P.M. . In this way ,
the information was given by the informant is after thought and with a
planned manner , the petitioner as well as his family member have been
made accused and the First Information Report was lodged belatedly .
11. That, the petitioner surrendered before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate , Munger on 11.08.2008 and having seen the physical
structure of the petitioner , the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger
forwarded him to Juvenile Justice Board and he was sent in remand home
on the same day.
12. That, the petitioner has no criminal history and the mother of
the petitioner is ready to take every responsibility of her son ,if he is
released on bail.
-7-
judgment and order dated 24th of March,2009
passed by learned Sri Madhusudan Singh ,
Sessions Judge ,Munger in Criminal Appeal
No.07 of 2009 , whereby and where under he
refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail by
dismissing the appeal and confirmed the order
dated 06.01.2009 passed by learned Juvenile
Justice Board, Munger in G.R. Case No. 1163 A
of 2008 , the above named petitioner begs to

other following
G R O U N D S:
well as on facts.
II. For that, the learned court below failed to appreciate that the
ingredients of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of
Children ) Act, 2000.
III. For that, the learned court below did not consider the period
of custody of the petitioner and rejected the appeal illegally.
IV. For that, the learned court below should have considered and
-8-
the entirety of the case as well as allegation part of the First Information
Report .
V. For that, the allegation of assault of Bhogendra Singh @
Bhogi Singh as well as Sheela Devi and infirmity of time period of injury
as well as no injury found on the portion of Bhogendra Singh @ Bhogi
Singh have not been considered by the learned court below ,it is quite
illegal in the eye of law as well as on facts.
VI. For that, the learned court below merely on the basis of
presumption that after being released from custody the petitioner can come
in the associates of criminals , it is quite illegal in the eye of law .

VII. For that, keeping the appellant in custody will expose him to
moral ,physical and physiological danger and keeping him in custody
would defeat the ends of justice .
VIII. For that, the mother of the petitioner is ready to take every
responsibility of her son ,if he is released on bail.
IX. For that, the impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts
and fit to be set aside.
application ,call for the records of the learned
court below and after hearing the parties be
-9-
24th of March,2009 passed by learned Sri
Madhusudan Singh , Sessions Judge ,Munger in
Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2009 , whereby and
where under he refused to enlarge the petitioner
on bail by dismissing the appeal and confirmed
the order dated 06.01.2009 passed by learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Munger in G.R. Case No.
1163 A of 2008 and be further pleased to enlarge
the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the
learned Juvenile Justice Board , Munger .

A ND / O R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA.
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION )
Cr. Rev. NO. __________________________/OF 2009.
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Utashav Kumar @ Utsav Kumar, son of Chandra Mohan Sah,
Resident of Mohalla- Dalhatta, P.S. Kotwali, District – Munger.
………….………….. ……. PETITIONER.
VERSUS.
The State of Bihar……………………………… OPPOSITE-PARTY
To,
The Hon’ble Sri R.M. Lodha , the Chief Justice of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna and His Lordship’s
Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble High Court .
-2-
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH :-
dated 28th March, 2008 passed by learned Sri Pandey Anil Kumar , the
learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court no. IV , Munger in Cr.
Appeal No.06 of 2008 , whereby and where under the aforesaid appeal was
dismissed and confirmed the order dated 29.12.2007 passed by learned Sri
P.K. Sinha , Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Munger in G.R.
No.483 A//2007 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No.105 of 2007 by which
the learned Principal Magistrate rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner
under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children )
Act, 2000.
2. That, the petitioner had earlier moved before this Hon'ble High
Court in Cr. Rev. No.453 of 2008 against the impugned order ,which was
rejected on 06.08.2008 by Hon'ble Mr. Justie Ghanshyam Prasad by
observing at this stage and thereafter the petitioner has not moved before
this Hon'ble High Court.
dated 06.08.2008 passed in Cr. Rev.
No.453 of 2008 is annexed herewith
-3-
this application.
3. That, the prosecution case is that on the basis of the Fardbeyan
of one Pramod Kumar , Kowali P.S. Case No.105 of 2007 dated 30.03.2007
was registered under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioner and others alleging interalia that on 30.03.2007 at about 8 P.M.
the son of the informant namely Prashant Kumar aged about-11 years had
gone to school and had not returned back. In course of search the elder son
of the informant was informed by the petitioner that two unknown persons
took away his brother on a Motorcycle . Later on, at about 2.30 P.M. a
demand of Rs.50,000/- was made on telephone and it was gathered that the
voice was of the petitioner . It has further been alleged that when the
informant tried to ascertain the matter through his own sources then the
informant came to know that it was the petitioner , who was kidnapped his
son along with his associates.
F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No.105 of
application.
-4-
4. That, the informant gave his Fardbeyan against the petitioner
and others about the kidnapping of his son namely Prashant Kumar merely
on the basis of voice on the telephone message though the petitioner
personally informed about his brother, who was being carried by two
persons on a Motorcycle but merely on the basis of inference ,the name of
the petitioner was dragged in the First Information Report and accordingly
the aforesaid First Information Report was lodged for offence under
Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code . The occurrence took place on
30.03.2007 as per the case-diary , the witness, who were the Chaukidar
gave their statement recorded in paragraph nos. 30 and 31 of the case-diary
namely Rajan Paswan as well as Prasidh Paswan by which the dead body
was not recovered on the basis of confessional statement of the

petitioner ,rather the confessional statement of the petitioner was recorded
on 31.03.2007 and the investigation is of 30.03.2007 and as per the case-
diary ,the petitioner was arrested on 30.03.2007 and his confessional
statement was recorded on 31.03.2007 . It means he Investigating Officer
having recorded the dead body of the deceased corroborate the complicity
of this petitioner by recording the confessional statement of the petitioner
by applying third degree behaviour . It is also very much important to
mention here that the confessional statement before the petitioner has no
legs in the
-5-
eye of law. Apart from this the same was not recorded as per Rules of Bihar
Police Manual.
5. That, the petitioner was declared as juvenile by the Juvenile
Justice Board on 12.11.2007 and his date of birth is 04.02.1993 and
accordingly he is a tiny boy aged about -14 years only.
6. That, the police by assaulting the petitioner procured his
signature on a plain paper and the same was converted into a confessional
statement .
7. That, in the confessional statement of the petitioner ,Kaushal
Kumar who throttled the deceased and all other accused persons have
assisted in the occurrence ,if the confessional statement of the petitioner is
assumed to be true. Not even only the petitioner is not the instrumental in
the way of kidnapping of the deceased because the son of the informant
himself said that Utsav informed him about the kidnapping of his brother but
merely on the basis of suspicion the name of the petitioner has been tagged
in the First Information Report .
8. That, the petitioner is in jail custody since 01.04.2007 and
other co-accused Kaushal Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Ravi @ Guddu are
already on bail. The co-accused Rocky Sharma has also been granted bail
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamrendra Pratap vide order dated 02.09.2008
passed in Cr. Misc. No.33246 of 2008.
-6-
9. That, the petitioner after his arrest moved his application for
bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of
Children ) Act, 2000 before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Munger ,who by his order dated 24.12.2007 in G.R. Case
No.483 of 2007 was pleased to reject the same.
10. That, thereafter the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated
24.12.2007 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate , Juvenile Justice
Board, Munger , petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2008
before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge , F.T.C. –IV, Munger
and Sri Pandey Anil Kumar by his judgment and order dated 28 th of
March,2008 was pleased to reject the same on the ground of appeal is devoid
of merit.
11. That, as per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and
Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 , a person if he is a juvenile is arrested or
detained , such person shall be released on bail with or without sureties .
Thus a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective
of nature of the offence alleged to have been committed unless it shown that
-7-
there appears reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to
bring him under the influence of any criminal or expose him to moral
danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
12. That, the parents of the petitioner are ready to keep the
petitioner under their guardianship and supervision and undertakes to this
Hon'ble court for the well being of the petitioner as well as the release of
the petitioner will not bring him under the influence of any bad element or
go into the association with any known criminal. The petitioner has no
criminal antecedent and as such his release cannot be termed that he will go
in association with the bad element of the society.
judgment and order dated 28th of March,2008
passed by learned Sri Pandey Anil
Kumar ,Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track

Court No.IV,Munger in Criminal Appeal No.06 of
2008 , whereby and where under he has been
pleased to reject the appeal as devoid of merit and
confirmed the order dated 24.12.2007 passed by
learned Sri P.K. Singh, Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Munger in G.R. Case
No.483 of 2007 , whereby and where under the
learned Magistrate
-8-
was pleased to reject the bail application of the
petitioner , the above named petitioner begs to
other following
G R O U N D S:
well as on facts.
II. For that, the learned appellate court without being scrutinized
the order passed by the learned court below passed the judgment in cryptic
manner.
III. For that, the learned appellate court should have distinguished
the case of this petitioner on the point of juvenile as per the order passed by
the learned Juvenile Justice Board but the learned Appellate Court failed to
appreciate the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of
Children) Act,2000.
IV. For that, the learned court below failed to consider the
undertakings given by the parents of this petitioner .
V. For that, the learned court below did not take into
consideration of the period of custody of the petitioner ,if the offence
presumed to be true then it is a case of first offender but the learned court
-9-
below did not appreciate the aspect of the matter and dismissed the appeal
without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
VI. For that, the learned court below without being deferred and
given any reason dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial mind.
VII. For that, both the judgment and order impugned is bad in law
and fit to be set aside.
application ,call for the records of the learned
court below and after hearing the parties be
28th of March,2008 passed by learned Sri Pandey
Anil Kumar ,Additional Sessions Judge , Fast
Track Court No.IV, Munger in Criminal Appeal

No.06 of 2008 , whereby and where under he has
been pleased to reject the appeal filed by the
petitioner and confirmed the order dated
24.12.2007 passed by learned Sri P.K. Singh,
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Munger in G.R. Case No.483 of 2007 , whereby
and where under the learned Magistrate was
-10-
pleased to reject the bail application of the
petitioner under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice
( Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 and
be further pleased to enlarge the petitioner on
bail during the pendency of this revision .
A ND / O R

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Dinesh Kumar, son of Ram Singar Singh ,
Resident of village –Bokhara , P.S. Karja , District – Muzaffarpur.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar.……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,
-2-
1. That, this memo of appeal is being directed against the
judgment and order dated 17.02. 2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No.53 of 2006
/11 of 2008 by Sri Narsingh Prasad, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge . , Fast Track Court No.6 , Sitamarhi , whereby and where under the
appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of
sentence dated 06.07.2006 was dismissed and affirmed the judgment and
order of sentence dated 06.07.2006 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate , Sadar Sitamarhi in Trial No.290 of 2006 arising out of
Dumra P.S.Case No.80 of 2001 by which the learned Magistrate found the
petitioner guilty under Section 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for two years U/S 304(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and also sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six months under
Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentence will run
concurrently.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble
Court earlier against the impugned Judgment and order.
3. That, the prosecution case ,in brief, is that the informant Sheo
Shankar Sah P.W. 6 gave his Fardbeyan before the Sub-Inspector of Dumra
Police- Station namely Mahadeo Sahu on 22.05.2001 at 10 A.M.,alleging
therein that the informant and his family members had gone to his Sasusral
at village- Subhai . On 22.05.2001 at about 8.30 A.M. when his daughter
-3-
namely Anjali Kumari aged about 10 years was going to the market by road
in the mean time one bus bearing Reg. No.7374 (Sundar Bharat ) of Kumar
Travels Company was driven by negligently and rashly and dashed his
daughter Anjali and fled away towards Muzaffarpur . It is further alleged

that his daughter died on spot , whose head was badly injured Thereafter
villagers assembled there and local persons said that the bus was driven by
the Driver rashly and negligently.
4. That, the aforesaid Fardbeyan of the informant Sheo Shankar
Sah , Dumra Police drew up a formal First Information Report and
registered a case bearing Dumra P.S. Case No.80 of 2001 dated 22.05.201
for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code .
5. That, after institution of the case, the police investigated the
case and after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-
sheet against the petitioner vide charge-sheet no.105 of 2001 dated
29.08.2001 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian
Penal Code.
6. That, it is stated that after submission of charge-sheet , the
279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
7. That, it is stated that after order taking cognizance , the
charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 279 and 304(A)
of the Indian Penal Code and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
-4-
8. That, it is stated that prosecution in order to bring home the
charges produced altogether 6 witnesses such as:-
P.W.1 : Mangal Sah , father-in-law of the informant
P.W.2 : Bishwanath Thakur ,

P.W.3 : Laxman Sah
P.W.4 : Kailash Sah
P.W.5 : Sunil Kumar Sada
P.W.6 : Shiv Shankar Sah ,informant himself
9. That, it is stated that out of six prosecution witnesses , two
prosecution witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 are declared hostile .
10. That, it is stated that only P.W.1 ,P.W.2 , P.W.3 and P.W.6
supported the prosecution version. The P.W.1 , P.W.5 and P.W.6 are close
related to each other and their evidence is not trustworthy .
11. That, it is stated that in his Fardbeyan ,the informant P.W.6 did
not claim that he identified the petitioner as a Driver of the said Bus ,who
driving the said bus rather he only said about the identification of the
bus ,who dashed the daughter of the informant .
12. That, it is stated that during the course of cross-examination,
the P.W.6 admitted that the petitioner was not put on Test Identification
Parade during the course of Police Investigation .
-5-
13. That ,it is stated that the prosecution did not examine the owner
of the bus in question for the purposes that on the date of occurrence the
petitioner was driving the said bus .

14. That, it is stated that during the course of trial the Post Mortem
Report was not exhibited by the prosecution .
15. That, it is stated during the course of trail the doctor ,who
conducted the autopsy of the deceased and the Investigating Officer of the
case was not examined by the prosecution.
16. That, it is stated that the said bus ,from which the occurrence
had taken place , was not examined by the District Transport Officer.
17. That, it is stated that neither the petitioner was arrested at the
sport nor the bus was caught hold ,therefore, there was no occasion by the
witnesses for identification of the driver , who drive the vehicle .
18. That, there are several contradictions in between the statement
of the witnesses and the witnesses including the informant has not
supported the prosecution version fully.
19. That ,the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate ,Sitamarhi Sadar
without scrutinizing or examining the material come during the course of
trial as well as discrepancies , passed the impugned judgment and order
dated 06 .07.2006 in Trial No.290 of 2006 whereby and where under the
learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty under Section 279 and
304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for two
-6-
years U/S 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced him to
undergo S.I. for six months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code
and both the sentence will run concurrently.

passed in Trial No.290 of 2006 is
20. That, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment
and order dated 06.07.2006 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge , F.T.C.-6 Sitamarhi which was registered as Cr. Appeal No.53 of
2006 /11 of 2008 ,who also without going through the material available
on record affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi , Sadar .
21. That, the learned appellate court directed the petitioner to
appear before the learned trial court within a month from the receipt of the
order .
22. That, after passing the judgment and order dated 17.02.2009 ,
the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the aforesaid judgment and
order on 20.02.2009 but the certified copy was delivered on
18.03.2009 ,therefore, the petitioner has not come before this Hon'ble Court
as early.
-7-
23. That , in view of the non –examination of important witnesses
such as Investigating Officer , doctor as well as contradiction in between the

statement of the witnesses as well as the Fardbeyan ,the impugned judgment
and order passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court is fit to
be set aside .
24. That, it is stated that during the course of trial as well as during
the pendency of the appeal ,the petitioner was all along on bail.
Judgment and order dated 17.02.2009 passed by
Sri Narsingh Prasad , the learned Additional
Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.6 ,Sitamarhi
in Cr. Appeal No.53 of 2006/ 11 of 2008 as well as
Trial No.290 of 2006 , the above named
petitioner begs to prefer this revision
GR OUNDS:
I. For that the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned
trail court as well as appellate court are bad in law as well as on facts.
-8-
II. For that, the learned trial court has failed to consider the
evidence on record in its proper prospective ,which vitiates the findings
completely .
III. For that, the learned trial court has convicted the petitioner
on the basis of the findings based on mere conjectures and surmises.
IV. For that, the learned trial court has committed error of law and
facts both ,while discussing the evidence of the witnesses .
V. For that, the judgment and order of the learned trial court have
vitiated on account of non-consideration of facts, evidence and materials
brought on the record and ,therefore, are fit to be set aside.
VI. For that , the materially contradictions in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses , as well as omissions in their evidence have not been
taken into consideration by the learned trial court and in that view of the
matter, the conviction of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law .
VII. For that, the prosecution could not prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubts against the petitioner and ,therefore, the conviction is
bad .
court failed to appreciate that the Investigating Officer of the case as well as
the doctor ,who conducted the autopsy of the deceased were not examined
by the prosecution ,whose evidence is necessary to come the conclusion of
the case .
-9-
court failed to appreciate that the informant admitted in his cross –
examination that the petitioner was not put on Test Identification Parade
during the course of investigation since the petitioner was not arrested on
the spot .
X. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that in the Fardbeyan the informant said about the
identification of the bus in question but he never claimed that he identified
the petitioner ,who driving the bus .
XI. For that, while convicting the petitioner , the learned trial
failed to consider that during the course of trial the prosecution did not
exhibited the Post – Mortem Report..
XII. For that, while affirming the order passed by the learned trial
court, the appellate court failed to appreciate that in the trial court judgment
there is several discrepancies .
XIII. For that, the learned trial court as well as appellate court ought
to have convict the petitioner on hypothetical manner without considering
the material available on record .
XIV. For that, the impugned judgment and order of the learned
trial court as well as appellate court is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your
-10-
appeal ,issue notice to the Opposite-party ,call for
the records of the learned trial court and after
the Judgment and order dated 17.02.2009 passed
by Sri Narsingh Prasad , the learned Additional
Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.6 ,Sitamarhi
in Cr. Appeal No.53 of 2006/ 11 of 2008 as well as
Trial No.290 of 2006 .
A N D /O R
Pass such other order or orders as your Lordship
circumstances of the case .
AND
application ,the petitioner may be enlarged on
bail to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-
Trial No.290 of 2006.

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Ram Naresh Bhagat ,son of Late Gauri Shankar Bhagat ,
Resident of village- Harsingpur , P.S. Runnisaidpur , District – Sitamarhi.
VERSUS
2. Kirtan Bhagat, son of Bipai Bhagat,
2. Sukhan Bhagat, son of Late Bipai Bhagat,
Both resident of village- Harsingpur, P.S. Runnisaidpur ,

To,
-2-
and order dated 28.01.2009 passed by Sri Shiv Kumar Jha , the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class , Sitamarhi Sadar in Complaint Case No.600
of 2002/ Trial No.1822 of 2009, whereby and where under the learned
Judicial Magistrate was pleased to discharge the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3
from the charges leveled against them under Sections 341 and 392 of the
Indian Penal Code in absence of evidence and taking the benefit of doubt .
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2009
passed by the learned trial court however he has moved before the learned
Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi against the judgment and order dated
28.01.2009 by filing Cr. Appeal No.13 of 2009 but the same was permitted
to be withdrawn vide order dated 27.02.2009 since the appeal is not
maintainable .
3. That, on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner in
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi , complaint case
No.600 of 2002 was registered .
-3-
4. That, the prosecution case ,in short , brief is that the petitioner
had gone to Sitamarhi along with his wife for treatment of his wife from
the doctor. The wife of the petitioner was checked up by the doctor and the
doctor advised for examination of blood and X- Ray and accordingly the
wife of the petitioner gave his blood and X-Ray was done . It is further said
that the petitioner sent his wife for the house and the petitioner stayed in
Sitamarhi for taking the report of blood and X-Ray . It is further said that
the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.2000/- from the State Bank and the said
amount keep with him but due to non-availability of the doctor , the
petitioner returned to his house in the evening.
It is further said that during the course of returning to his
house when the petitioner reached in between Ajamgarh and Bachhapur ,
suddenly the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 and one Ramashish Bhagat
surround the petitioner and snatched Rs.1800/- from the pocket of the
petitioner on the point of Chhura and Danda.
It is further said that all the accused persons threatened the
petitioner ,if he will raise alarm then he will be killed in the meantime the
witnesses came at the place of occurrence then the accused persons fled
away with the money. It is further said that after returning to his house, the
petitioner had gone to the Police – Station for lodging the case but the
police refused to register the case and accordingly the complaint case was
filed by the complainant.
-4-
5. That, it is stated that after taking the statement of the petitioner
on solemn affirmation , the case was transferred to the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate for its trial.
6. That, it is stated that after taking the statement of witnesses
produced on behalf of the prosecution , the learned Magistrate took
cognizance against the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 and one Ramashish
Bhagat under Section 341 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code vide order
dated 16.09.2002.
7. That, it is stated that after taking cognizance the learned
Judicial Magistrate issued summon against the accused persons for their
appearance .
8. That, it is stated that during the course of trial one co-accused
Ramashish Bhagat died ,therefore, the proceeding against the said
Ramashish Bhagat was dropped and the case was proceeded against the
altogether three witnesses such as P.W.1 Dashrath Bhagat (uncle of the
petitioner ) , P.W. 2 Raj Kishore Singh , P.W.3 Ram Naresh Bhagat

(complainant and petitioner himself ) and all of them had fully supported
the prosecution case.
prosecution had fully supported the prosecution case and though they were
cross examined at length by the defense but they could not get any
-5-
contradiction in their cross – examination what the witnesses had stated in
their examination –in-chief in support of the prosecution case.
8. That, apart from the oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution
exhibits were also filed such as Exhibit -1 signature of the complainant on
complaint petition .
9. That, it is stated that on behalf of the defense Exhibit –“A” was
produced which is the order dated 09.12.2003 passed in Case No.248 of
2002 for proceeding under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure
between the parties . The said document shows that there is a dispute
between the parties ,therefore, it was occasion for the Opposite-party nos. 2
and 3 to assault the petitioner and snatch the money .
10. That, it is stated that the P.W.1 and P.W.3 in their evidence
specifically said that they saw the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 snatching the
money of the petitioner .
11. That, it is stated that the petitioner in his evidence as well as
the complaint petition specifically said that he had gone Sitamarhi for
treatment of his wife and in the same evening during the course of returning
the accused persons snatched his money on the point of Chhura and Danda.
order dated 28.01.2009 passed by Sri Shiv Kumar Jha , the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class , Sitamarhi Sadar in
Complaint Case No.600 of 2002/ Trial No.1822 of 2009, the
-6-
above named petitioner begs to prefer this revision application
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while acquitting the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 ,the
learned trial court ought to have considered that the petitioner did not
disclose the date of occurrence in the complaint ,rather the petitioner
specifically said in the complaint petition that after check up of his by the
doctor he returned to his house in the evening of same day and in the way
the said occurrence had taken place.
III. For that, while acquitting the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3, the
learned trial court ought to have considered that the prosecution failed to
examine the wife of the petitioner ,since the wife of the petitioner is not the
eye witness of the occurrence ,therefore, there is no occasion for his
evidence.
IV. For that, while acquitting the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3,the
learned trial court ought to have considered that there is contradiction in
between the snatched amount of the petitioner ,rather P.W.1 and 2
specifically said in his evidence that they have seen the accused persons
snatching the money from the pocket of petitioner since the money was kept
-7-
in the pocket of the petitioner ,therefore, there is no occasion to say about
the exact amount.
V. For that, while acquitting the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3,the
learned trial court ought to have considered that the prosecution has
failed to produce the medical report of his wife ,since for proving the
prosecution case ,the medical report of his wife is not necessary ,therefore,
the petitioner did not produce the said document .
aspects of the case and taking the benefit of doubt discharge the Opposite-
party nos. 2 and 3 from the charges.
witnesses consistently support the contents of the complaint petition .
law .
graciously be pleased to admit this application, issue notice to
the opposite-parties ,call for the records of the learned trial
court and after hearing the parties be further pleased to set
aside the judgment and order dated 28.01.2009 passed by Sri
Shiv Kumar Jha , the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class ,
Sitamarhi Sadar in Complaint Case No.600 of 2002/ Trial
-8-
No.1822 of 2009 and convict the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3
for the charges leveled against them .
AND/OR

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Raushan Ara, wife of Md. Shamim ,
Resident of village-Paithan Kawai , P.S. Manigachhi , District – Darbhanga ,
presently residing at village- Motipur , P.S. Motipur, District – Muzaffarpur.
VERSUS
2. Ejaz Ahmad Khan ,
3. Ibrar Ahmad Khan,
4. Izhar Khan,
All sons of Late Wasi Ahmad Khan,
5. Imdad Ahmad Khan , son of Izhar Khan ,
All resident of village- Paithan Kawai , P.S. Manigachhi,
-2-
District – Darbhanga.
To,
The Hon’ble Sri C.K. Prasad , the Hon’ble Acting Chief
and order dated 11.12.2008 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Pathak , the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.4 ,
Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.220 of 2000 , whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge was though pleased to convict the
Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 for the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 323
of the Indian Penal Code but by the same judgment and order the learned
Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to observe that the prosecution has
not been able to prove the charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and due to non- examination of the doctor charge under Section 324
Indian Penal Code has also not been proved . The learned Additional
Sessions Judge heard the parties on sentence and had chosen not to sentence
the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 for the offences committed by them ,
-3-
however they were released from custody giving them benefit of Section 3
of the Probation of Offender Act after due admonition.
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned trial court.
3. That, on the basis of Fardbeyan of the petitioner recorded by
the Officer-in-Charge of Sakari Police- Station on 07.05.1999 at
Government Hospital, Sakari , District – Madhubani , Manigachhi P.S. Case
No.42 of 1999 dated 07.05.1999 was recorded in Manigachhi Police- Station
against the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 and one other for the offences under
Sections 341, 323,324 , 427, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and pursuant
to the requisition filed by the Investigating Officer ,offence under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.
4. That, after investigation , the police submitted charge-sheet
against the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 , whereas final report was submitted

against Aarju , daughter of Izhar Khan and on the basis of the charge-sheet
cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 427,504 and 307 of the
Indian Penal Code was taken and the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 were put on
trial.
altogether nine witnesses and all of them had supported the prosecution case.
-4-
6. That, out of nine witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.1
Phool Babu Khan , P.W.3 Ladle Khan, P.W.5 Md. Sabbir, P.W.6 Lalo Khan
were named in the Fardbeyan as a witness , who had seen the occurrence
with their naked eye .
prosecution had fully supported the prosecution case and though they were
cross examined at length by the defense but they could not get any
contradiction in their cross – examination what the witnesses had stated in
their examination –in-chief in support of the prosecution case.
8. That, apart from the oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution
exhibits were also filed and Exhibit -3 was the injury report of the informant
issued by the Medical Officer of Sakari State Dispensary .
9. That, according the injury report , the informant had sustained
following Injuries :-
(I) Contusion 2” X 1 ½” on the front of the neck with pain ,difficulty in

swelling and in respiration .
(II) Contusion 2 ¼” X 2” on the occipital surface .
(III) Incised 2” X ¼” X Scalp depth on the middle of the head.
10. That, despite the best efforts of the prosecution , the
doctor ,who had issued the injury report could not be examined by the
prosecution.
-5-
11. That, similarly because of hostile attitude of the learned Public
Prosecutor ,the Investigating Officer also could not produce for his
examination as a Prosecution witness.
12. That, though the Injury report was on record as Exhibit “3”
without any objection to the defense, yet only because the doctor was not
examined , the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 to discharge for the offences under
Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code , though according to the
Injury Report , the informant –petitioner had sustained injuries on neck by
hard and blunt substance and incised wound at the middle of the head.
13. That, though the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 were convicted for
the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code but
they were released from the custody under Section 3 of the Probation of
Offenders Act ,though on behalf of the prosecution ,the judgment of the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class , Darbhanga passed in Trial No.333 of

2004 was brought on record to show that the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 4 are
habitual offenders and they have already availed the benefits of Section 3
of the Probation of Offender Act , yet the learned Additional Sessions Judge
by the impugned order released the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 under Section
3 of the Probation of the Offender Act.
passed in T.R. No.333 of 2004 is
-6-
order dated 11.12.2008 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Pathak ,
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge , Fast Track
Court No.4 , Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.220 of 2000, the
above named petitioner begs to prefer this revision application
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of
Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

III. For that, while granting benefits of Section 360 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure , the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to
appreciate that the benefit could be extended only and only if there is no
previous conviction against the offender , whereas against the Opposite-
party nos. 2,3 and 4 , they were earlier also convicted in Trial No. 333 of
2004 and they have already availed the fruits of Section 360 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
-7-
IV. For that, while passing the impugned judgment and order , the
learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that if the injury
report of the petitioner was available on record as Ext. 3 without any
objection to the defense according to which the petitioner had sustained
even head injury by sharp cutting weapon only because of non-examination
of doctor ,the accused persons cannot be discharged for the offence under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
V. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
the opposite-parties ,call for the records of the learned trial
court and after hearing the parties be further pleased to set
aside the judgment and order dated 11.12.2008 passed by Sri

Satyendra Kumar Pathak , the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.4 , Darbhanga in Sessions
Trial No.220 of 2000 and convict the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5
for the charges leveled against them .
AND/OR
( PETITIONER IN CUSTODY )
CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2009.

Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Avinash Kumar Singh @ Nanhaku @ Nandu @ Chhote Singh , son of Sri
Mahendra Singh , resident of village- Gonahi , P.S. Patahi , District – East
Champaran at Motihari.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar. …….……………..……………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,
-2-
and order dated 15th January , 2009 passed by the learned 5 th Additional
Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur in Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2008 , whereby

and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to
reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Trial No.1222
of 2008 arising out of Riga P.S.Case No.10 of 2007 dated
28.01.2007 ,pending in the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Muzaffarpur for the offence Under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code .
3. That, the prosecution case ,in short, interalia is that the
informant gave his Fardbeyan before the Officer-in-Charge of Bathnaha
Police- Station alleging therein that on 28.01.2007 , he left Sitamarhi on his
Bajaj Motorcycle bearing Reg. No.BR-30A-3697 . It is further alleged that
in the evening , he reached near Ram Nagar Chauri at NH-77 , where three
miscreants stopped him at the point of Revolver and hit with the BUTT of
the revolver on his head and fired upon the informant but luckily the
informant was escaped . It is further alleged that all the accused persons
snatched the Motorcycle of the informant and fled away . It is further
-3-
alleged that some important papers were also there in the Dickky of the
Motorcycle . It is further alleged that the informant claimed to be identified
the miscreants after seeing them .
4. That, on the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan of the informant ,
Riga Police drew up a formal First Information Report and registered a

case being Riga P.S. Case No. 10 of 2007 dated 28.01.2007 for the offences
F.I.R. of Riga P.S. Case No.10 of
2007 is annexed hereto and marked as
Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur being Trial No. 1222 of 2008 arising
out of Riga P.S. Case No. 10 of 2007 dated 28.01.2007 for the offences
whatsoever and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. That, the petitioner is not named in the First Information
Report although the First Information Report was registered against three
unknown persons.
8. That, it is stated that no looted motorcycle has been recovered
from the possession of the petitioner .
-4-
9. That, the informant of this case himself said in the First
Information Report that he will identify the miscreants after seeing them but
no Test Identification Parade was conducted by the police in the present
case .
10. That, it is stated that during the course of investigation, the
name of the petitioner has come in the present case only on the basis of
mere suspicion .
11. That, in the First Information Report , the informant himself
said that all the accused persons are aged about 20-25 years and in the
medical examination , the age of the petitioner was assessed by the medical
board as about -17 years ,it means that the petitioner is not involved in
the present case.
12. That, it is stated that the offence under Section 394 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner .
13. That, the petitioner was arrested by the police on 05.02.2007
merely on the basis of suspicion and since then the petitioner is behind the
bar without any fault.
the Court Juvenile Justice Board ,Muzaffarpur ,wherein the learned Juvenile
juvenile .
-5-
Juvenile Justice Board ,which was rejected by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board vide order dated 18.09.2008 .

Appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur being Cr.
Appeal No.99 of 2008 ,which was rejected by the learned 5 th Additional
Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur vide his order dated 15.01.2009.
petitioner.
judgment and order dated 15th January , 2009
passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions
following
-6-
GROUNDS:

II. For that, while rejecting the Criminal appeal the learned 5 th
III. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal ,the learned 5 th
IV. For that, the impugned order of learned 5 th Additional Sessions
V. For that , while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned 5 th
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that no one seen the petitioner
at the time of committing the so-called occurrence .
VI. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned 5 th
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that nothing looted articles
have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner .
-7-
after hearing the parties be further pleased to

quash the order dated 15th January , 2009 passed
by the learned 5th Additional Sessions
2008 and be further pleased to direct for release of
the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the
learned Juvenile Justice Board ,Muzaffarpur in
connection
with Trial No.1222 of 2008 , arising out of Riga
P.S. Case No. 10 of 2007 dated 28.01.2007 .
AND/OR

CR. REV. NO._________________/OF 2009.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Prayag Kumar , son of Late Kashi Mahto ,
Resident of village- Hemjapur Chand Tola, P.S. Dharhara, District –
Munger.
VERSUS
The State of Bihar. …………………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,
-2-

and order dated 12th December, 2008 passed in Cr. Appeal No.140 of 2007
by learned Sri Parshuram Shukla , Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track
Court No.1, Munger arising out of judgment and order of conviction passed
by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,Munger on 03.11.2007
in G.R.No.1783 of 2006 recorded on the basis of Dharhara P.S. Case No.105
of 2006 , whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,
F.T.C.No.1 ,Munger dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming
the judgment and order of conviction dated 03.11.2007 passed in
G.R.No.1783 of 2006 by learned Sri Harendra Nath , Sub- Divisional
Judicial Magistrate , Munger by which the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of
Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 25(1-B)A of the Arms Act and further
sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine ,he shall undergo
simple imprisonment for three months and all the sentences shall run
concurrently and the period of detention undergone by him during the
investigation and trial shall be set of against aforesaid terms of
imprisonment imposed as per the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure .
-3-
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and orders passed by the
learned trial court as well as appellate court.
3. That, prior to coming on the point of substantial question of
law , the brief history of the prosecution case is referred hereunder :-
The informant namely Vishwanath Prasad P.W.3 , who is the
Officer-in-Charge of Hemjapur Out Post submitted a written report to the
Officer-in-Charge of Dharhara Police- Station ,stating interalia that on
12.11.2006 at about 9 A.M. on the basis of secret information about having
illegal arms of two persons , the informant proceeding by mentioning the
Station –Diary entry along with Police Official and when he reached near
Shivkund ,two persons started to escape and with the help of Chaukidar as
well as Driver , they were chased and lastly arrested and after being
searched a country made pistol , one live cartridges and five empty
cartridges have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner and
details of the recovered article has been mentioned in the First Information
Report and after being asked the requisite documents ,he is quite unable to
produce the same and the possession of the illegal arms was well known to
the other accused namely Subodh Mahto and lastly they were arrested and
remanded to judicial custody and the First Information Report was
instituted bearing Dharhara P.S. Case No.105 of 2006.
4. That, after being submitted charge-sheet by the Investigating
-4-
Officer ,the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,Munger took cognizance for
the offence under Section 25(1-B)A,26 and 35 of the Arms Act on
10.01.2007 and the case was transferred to the court of the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Munger on 17.01.2007 and the charges
were framed of the aforesaid Sections of the Arms Act and explained in
Hindi before them and they denied about the offence and claimed to be
tried. Later on trial of the another accused Subodh Kumar was separated
vide order dated 30.10.2007 and denial of the accusation during the
statement conducted under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
5. That, the prosecution produced as many as six witnesses out of
them P.W.1 Yadu Paswan Chaukidar , P.W.2 Satya Narayan Paswan
Dafadar are the seizure list wintesses , P.W.3 Vishwanath Prasad Officer-in-
Charge of Hemjapur Outpost , informant of this case , P.W.4 Rajendra
Thakur Sergeant ,who conducted the test of seized arms , P.W.5 who is also
the driver of Police Jeep and P.W.6 the Investigating Officer of this case.
The docments such as seizure list ,seized articles such as the country made
pistol as well as five empty cartridges and one live cartridges have been
shown as Exhibits mentioned in the judgment of the learned trial court
itself.
6. That, the learned trial Court ( Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate , Munger ) before whom the witnesses were produced and the
learned trial court did not examine the evidences come during the course
-5-
of trial meticulously . First of all, it is very much important to mention here
that the P.W.3 informant having received the secret information at 9 A.M.
and arranged the raiding party in which P.W.1 Chaukidar , P.W.2 Dafadar
and P.W.5 Driver and proceeded towards the place of occurrence which is
about 8 K.M. far away and it will take time minimum one hour and in the
testimony , P.W.3 deposed that the petitioner was arrested at 9 A.M. in his
cross examination . It is also said in the testimony that he failed to describe
about the place of occurrence as well as in para -10 of his cross-examination
that no one was present at the place of occurrence at the time of seizure of
the arms and ammunitions . On the contrary the P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed
that there is a tea stall adjacent to the place of occurrence as well as 5-6
persons were present at the time . In this way the informant P.W3 did not
prepare the seizure list in the presence of the independent witnesses of the
locality rather P.W.1 and P.W.2 ,who are the Chaukidar and Dafadar have
been made as seizure list witnesses and without taking into consideration
the provisions of search and seizure mentioned in Section 100 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure itself the learned trial court passed the judgment
illegally as well as learned lower appellate court has also erred in passing
the judgment in this regard.
7. That, the P.W.4 Sergeant Major examined the seized arms and
cartridges and in paragraph no.8 of his testimony ,it is said that the seized
pistol cannot be utilized by loading 315 cartridge and the live cartridges
-6-
which was seized is of 315 . Meaning thereby the Police Officials including
the informant P.W.3 planted the instant case by producing the arms and
ammunitions from his Malkhana because P.W.6 Investigating Officer of
this case is the In-charge of Malkhana, it has come in the testimony of P.W.6
itself. Not even only the P.W.6 deposed in paragraph no.29 of the
testimony that as per the direction of the Officer-in-Charge P.W.3 , the case-
diary has been written. The learned trial court has also misconceived to
examine the statement of the Investigating Officer P.W.6 in paragraph
no.24 and paragraph no.18 in which it has come that the seized article was
sent to P.W.4 on 13.12.2006 ,whereas P.W.4 deposed that he has received
the seized article on 16.12.2006 . It means whole procedure conducted by
the police officials comes under the ambit of doubt but the learned trial
court as well as the learned lower appellate court did not examine and pass
the judgment erroneously.
8. That, so far the number of cartridges which was seized from the
possession of this petitioner differs to the statement of P.W.5 , P.W.1 and
P.W.2 . All of them gave contradictory statement with regard to the number
of cartridges . In this regard, the learned trial court simply said that due to
illiteracy of the P.Ws. they deposed before the court contradictorily but it is
very much prejudice to the case of the defense and the benefit of doubt
goes on the part of the petitioner and it creates a serious doubt about the
falsely implication of the petitioner but the learned trial court erred in
-7-
passing his judgment and the learned lower appellate court did not take
into consideration on this aspect also.
9. That, the learned trial court has also failed to appreciate with
regard to evidence collected about the place of occurrence which is quite
different in between the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the
statement of P.W.6 Investigating Officer mentioned in case-diary itself . Not
even only the Investigating Officer P.W.6 did not mention the prosecution
case and the seizure list as well as no dates of collecting material of the
seizure list have been mentioned in the case-diary as well as in his
testimony . The P.W.6 did not give description about the seized pistol and
sent it to the Sergeant Major . It came also in the ambit of doubt and after
being taken the case in totality it seems to be false and planted case but the
learned trial court as well as learned lower appellate court both erred in
passing the judgment and convicted the petitioner .
10. That, the prosecution has failed to produce any independent
witness rather all the witnesses are interest and related to each other because
all the witnesses are police officials but the learned trial court as well as the
learned lower appellate court did not take into consideration and pass the
judgment of conviction.
11. That, the petitioner has already been suffered during the period
of trial in judicial custody since 13.11.2006 to . . .
-8-
judgment and order dated 12th December, 2008
passed by the learned Sri Parshuram Shukla
No.1 , Munger in Criminal Appeal No.140 of
2007 as well as the judgment and order dated
03.11.2007 passed by learned Sri Harendra Nath ,
Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,Munger in
G.R.No.1783 of 2006 arising out of Dharhara P.S.
Case No.105 of 2006 the , the above named
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the learned trial court as well as the learned lower
appellate court did not appreciate about the time of occurrence as well as
arresting of the petitioner and also misconceived the lodge of the First
Information Report belatedly.
II. For that, the learned trial court as well as the learned lower
appellate court did not take into consideration about the contradictory
statement of P.Ws.1,2 and 5 with regard to the numbers of the cartridges.
III. For that, the P.W.3 Officer-in-Charge of Hemjapur
Outpost ,who is the informant did not fulfill the criteria of search and
seizure but the

-9-
learned trial court erred in passing the judgment and the learned lower
appellate court confirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial court
illegally ,which is fit to be set aside.
IV. For that, the P.W.6 gave description of the place of occurrence
that the tea stall is just adjacent to the place of occurrence and P.W.1 and 2
have also deposed that some persons were present there at the time of search
and seizure but no independent witnesses has either been examined or made
seizure list witnesses but the learned trial court failed to appreciate in this
regard and passed the judgment illegally.
V. For that, the learned trial court as well as learned lower
appellate court both erred in passing the judgment without taking into
consideration the testimony of P.W.6 as well as P.W.4 mentioned in
paragraph nos. 9,18,24 and 29 of the testimony of P.W.6 as well as
paragraph no.8 of the testimony of P.W.4 and whole paragraphs mentioned
above goes to prove the false accusation as well as planted case , the learned
trial court should have appreciated on this aspect.
VI. For that, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
court as well as the learned appellate court is quite illegal in the eye of law
as well as facts ,which are fit to be set aside.
the opposite-party ,call for the records of the learned trial court
-10-
and after hearing the parties be further pleased to set aside the
judgment and order dated 12th December, 2008 passed by the
learned Sri Parshuram Shukla Additional Sessions Judge , Fast
Track Court No.1 , Munger in Criminal Appeal No.140 of
2007 as well as the judgment and order dated 03.11.2007
passed by learned Sri Harendra Nath , Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate ,Munger in G.R.No.1783 of 2006 arising out of
Dharhara P.S. Case No.105 of 2006.
AND/OR
AND
During the pendency of this application the petitioner shall be
enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial court
(S.D.J.M., Munger) and also stay the order of fine .

Cr. Rev. NO.________________________/OF 2009.
Umesh Thakur…….……………………………… PETITIONER
VERSUS.
The State of Bihar and another...…….....……OPPOSITE-PARTIES
SUBJECT:- Revision
I N D E X.
Sl. PARTICULARS PAGE
No. NOS.
01. An application under Sections 397 and 401 1 to 8
of the Code of Criminal Procedure with
affidavit
02. ANNEXURE- 1 A true photo stat copy of the Maintenance 9

Case No.17 of 2008
03. ANNEXURE- 2 A true photo stat copy of the written
statement filed by the petitioner
04. Impugned order
05. VAKALATNAMA
-8-
A F F I D A V I T.
I , Umesh Thakur , aged about - years, son of Sri Akalu Thakur ,
Resident of village- Ram Nagra , P.S. Riga, District – Sitamarhi, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as follows :-
1. That, I am petitioner in this case and as such am well

acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That, the contents of this application and affidavit have been
read over and explained to me in Hindi which I have fully understood and
the same are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
3. That, the annexures are the true typed /photo stat copies of
their respective originals.
NOTICE
FROM:- Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh ,

Advocate for the petitioner.
Chamber No.55
Bar Council Bhawan ,
High Court, Patna.
M.No.9905059691
To,
The Advocate General,
High Court, Patna.
Cr. Rev. NO.________________________/OF 2009.
Umesh Thakur ……..………………………………… PETITIONER
VERSUS.
The State of Bihar and another...…….....……OPPOSITE-PARTIES
Sir,
Please take notice that a copy of an application under Sections
397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with affidavit and annexure
along with order is being filed today on behalf of the petitioner . A copy
of which is being served on you for your use. Please acknowledge the
receipt of the same.
Yours Faithfully
ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER.

Cr. Rev.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cr. Rev.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA .

( CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2014.

In the matter of an application under

Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of

Dhrupdev Mishra, son of Late Bhawani Mishra

Resident of village- Bishunpura, P.O. Jagdishpur , P.S. Nautan , District –

1.The State of Bihar.

2. Balram Mishra , son of Late Bhawani Mishra,

All sons of Balram Mishra,

Jagdishpur , P.S. Nautan , District – Siwan.

The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon'ble

Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Her

Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble High Court.

The humble petition on behalf of

the petitioner above named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

1. That, this revision application is directed against the

the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Siwan in Trial No.6536 of 2014

trial court had convicted the accused persons (Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 )

considering their clean antecedent , benefit of Section -3 of the Probation of

Offenders Act was granted to the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 .

Sessions Judge , Siwan or before this Hon’ble Court against the

impugned order dated 08.07.2014.

3. That, Nautan P.S. Case No.60 of 2003 dated 04.10.2003 was

submitted on the basis of Fardbeyan of the informant Dhurpdev

Police , Mairwa Police- Station on 01.10.2003 at Primary Health Centre,

A true photo stat/ typed copy of the F.I.R. of

Nautan P.S. Case No.60 of 2003 dated 04.10.2003

is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-

“1” for identification forming part of this petition.

4. That, according to the Fardbeyan ,the prosecution case, in short

interalia is that on 01.10.2003 at about 8 A.M. while his daughter Pushpa

Mishra came there and stated abusive language .

On alarm by his daughter Pushpa , the informant rushed there

substance ) . At the same time Rameshwar Mishra reached there with

Mishra again assaulted him by hard and blunt substance.

It was a further case of the petitioner that on alarm , his son

matter could be pacified.

5. That, since the petitioner had sustained grievous head injury

by the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Mairwa on

01.10.2013 itself . The Mairwa Police- Station was accordingly informed

A true typed copy of the letter of Incharge

Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre , Mairwa

dated 01.10.2013 is annexed herewith and marked

as ANNEXURE- “2” to this petition.

6. That, after institution of the case , the police proceeded with

persons ,therefore, a protest petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner

against the police investigation.

7. That, before the police could have completed the investigation

and submitted charge-sheet , the injury report from G.S.B.M Medical

Medical Officer , Mairwa Primary Health Centre , on 01.02.2004 , he

by the petitioner was opined to be simple in nature but on receipt of the

Nautan Police on 01.02.2004 that the nature of injuries sustained by the

petitioner is grievous in nature.

A true typed copy of the injury report dated

01.02.2004 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE- “3” to this petition.

8. That, notwithstanding the injury report that the petitioner had

sustained grievous injury on his head , Nautan Police submitted Charge-

report on 01.02.2004 itself.

A true photo stat copy of the Charge-Sheet No.71

of 2004 dated 19.02.2004 is annexed herewith and