SHIVNATH PRASADversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

                       [2008] 16 $.C.R. 766
                                 I




A                      SHIVNATH PRASAD                            +- -
                                     II.
                     THE STATE OF BIHAR
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1892 of 2008)

                      NOVEMBER 28, 2008
B
        [DR·. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                        SHARMA, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860 - ss.279 and 304A - Conviction under
c - Revision petition filed by accused - Dismissed by High
    Court by a cryptic order - On appeal, held:· High Court did
    not notice various submissions made by the accused - Matter
    remitted to High Court for consideration afresh.

D        The appellant was convicted by the trial court and the
    appellate Court under ss.274 and 304A IPC. The revision
    petition filed by appellant was dismissed by the High
    court on the ground that there was no scope for                       ...
    interference.                                                 ~

E      In the instant appeal, it was contended for the
  appellant that while dismissing the revision petition, the
  High Court did not notice several infirmities in the
  prosecution version i.e. the 1.0., the doctor and the
  informant were not examined; the postmortem report was
F not exhibited; the trial court and the appellate court relied
  upon the_evidence of PW-3, who was not the informant             ')._
  and was not even named as an eye-witness; and out of
  the five eye-witnesses, three did not support the
  prosecution version while one eye-witness was not
G examined   during investigation.
        Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to               ..,
    the High Court, the Court                                      "
                             j
H                                766
                     SHIVNATH PRASAD v. STATE OF BIHAR                    767


    ..; )         HELD: The High Court, by a cryptic order, dismissed            A
             the revision petition, without noticing the various
             submissions made by the appellant. In the
             circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court is
             set aside. [Para 7] [768-E-F]
                                                                                 8
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
;            No. 1892 of 2008.

       -'f       From the Judgment and final Order dated 30.6.2008 of the
             High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Revision No. 572. of
             2008.                                                               c
                 Manish Kumar Saran and Nirmal Kumar Ambastha for the
             Appellant.

                 Gopal Singh and Shweta Kumari Singh for the
                                                                                 0
             Respondent.
                 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                 DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Heard
                                                                                 E
                 2. Leave granted.

                   3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
             Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the revision
             petition filed by the appellant.
                                                                                 F
(                4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

                   The appellant was convicted for offences.punishable under
             Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
             short 'the iPC') by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West
             Champaran. He was sentenced to undergo simple G
             imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. Both
             the sentences were directed to run concurrently. An appeal was
             filed and the leaned Add!tional District and Sessions Judge,


-            Fast Track Court No. II, 13ettiah, West Champaran affirmed the.
                                                                                 H
    768          SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2008] 16 S.C.R.


A conviction and sentence. The revision filed was dismissed by        +    )'>



  the impugned order on the ground that there was no scope for
  interference.

       5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
  prosecution version has not been established. There were
B
  several infirmities which the High Court unfortunately did not                  ,,
  notice. The 1.0., the Doctor and the informant were not
  examined. The post-mortem report was also not exhibited. PW-
                                                                      1'
  3, who claimed to be the son of the deceased was not the
  informant. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court relied
c upon his evidence. Significantly, he was al~ not named as an
  eye witness in the FIR. PW-4 claimed to· be an eye-witness.
  But, he was not examined during investigation. Out of the five
  witnesses, who were stated to be eye~witnesses, three did not
  support the prosecution version.
D
       6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, all these
  factors have not been considered by the High Court. Learned                    4..
  counsel for the respondent-State supported the impugned              ~
  order of the High Court.
E
       7. We find that the High Court has, by a cryptic order,
  dismissed the revision petition. It has not noticed the various
  submissions made by the appellant, as noticed above. In the
  circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High
  Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in
F accordance with law.
                                                                       )..
          8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
   8.8.B~                                    Appeal disposed of.