Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SHIVNATH PRASAD versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided
28 November 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 766 · 2008 INSC 1362
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Heard

p. 767

2

Leave granted.

p. 767

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.

p. 767

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. conviction and sentence. The revision filed was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that there was no scope for interference.

pp. 767–768

5

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution version has not been established. There were several infirmities which the High Court unfortunately did not notice. The 1.0., the Doctor and the informant were not examined. The post-mortem report was also not exhibited. PW- 3, who claimed to be the son of the deceased was not the informant. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court relied upon his evidence. Significantly, he was 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.

p. 768, margin A

6

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

p. 768, margin D

7

We find that the High Court has, by a cryptic order, dismissed the revision petition. It has not noticed the various submissions made by the appellant, as noticed above. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

p. 768, margin E

8

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 8.8.B~ Appeal disposed of.

p. 768, margin F