Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 15 (PAT)

Laldeo Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2001-01-05

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2001
Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellants, Laldeo Yadav anc Lalji Yadav of Cr. App. No. 401 of 1989 have been convicted under Sections 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307 and two years under Section 148 each of the Indian Penal Code However the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. All the appellants of Cr. App. No. 415 of 1989 have been convicted under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. They have been further convicted under Sectior 148 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been passed. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.4.1983 the informant Suraj Nath Singh (P.W. 1) was returning from block office Kako. When he reached near the sun temple on Kako Jehanabad Road at 3.00 p.m. he saw that all the accused-persons came from east. Out of the accused- person Laldeo Gope and Laljee Gope and others were armed with pistol, accused Ram Pal Gope and others were armed with guns, revolvers, pasuli ana lathi They attacked on the informant. It has been alleged that appellants Laljee and Laldeo with a view to kill him fired shots at him. He became injured. The nephew of the informant, who was also going with the informant, fled away due to fear. The informant fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter when the informant regained consciousness his fardbeyan was recorded at Jehanabad Sub-divisional Hospital on 26.4.1983. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted concluded with the result as stated above. The appellants pleaded not guilty and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined four witnesses including the informant PW 1, P.W. 2 is Rajendra Prasad, P.W. 3 is Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sharma, who had examined the injured informant on 26.4.83 at Jehanabad Hospital and P.W. 4 is the Investigating Officer of this case. 5. P.W. 1 the informant has fully supported the case as narrated by him in the first information report. Mithilesh Kumar Sharma, who had examined the injured informant on 26.4.83 at Jehanabad Hospital and P.W. 4 is the Investigating Officer of this case. 5. P.W. 1 the informant has fully supported the case as narrated by him in the first information report. According to him, on the date of occurrence he was returning from the block office after attending the meeting of Block Development. He was accompanied by his nephew P.W. 2. He has stated that as he reached near the sun temple the appellants variously armed surrounded him. Appellants Laldeo and Laljee fired at him from country made pistol causing injury on different parts of his body. He has stated that the reason of assault by the appellants was land dispute between them. He has further stated that after the assault the appellants and their companions fled away. Thereafter P.W. 2 took him to Jehandabad Hospital where he was treated by the doctor. From Jehanabad Hospital he was referred to P.M.C.H. for further treatment. His statement was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge (P.W. 4) at jehanabad Hospital. 6. P.W. 2, nephew of the informant has also supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that while he was coming after attending the meeting at the Block and reached near the Sun Temple, 13 persons including the appellants surrounded him. The appellants fired from their pistols at his uncle and other also assaulted him with lathi Thereafter they fled away. He has stated that there was enmity between his uncle and the appellants and several cases were pending. According to him two of naxalites were killed in his village in police encounter. The police had come in the village on the information of his uncle, the informant. As such, they were against his uncle. He has stated that a pamphlet was exhibited which was published by Indian Peoples Front calling a rally against his uncle. 7. P.W. 3 is the doctor who examined the injured informant at Jehanabad Hospital. According to the doctor all the injuries were simple in nature. He has testified the injury report Ext. 2. No pellet was recovered. No X-ray was done as it was not needed. He has stated that some of the injuries might have been caused by fall. Injury Nos. 4 and 7 can only be sustained by different shots. 8. According to the doctor all the injuries were simple in nature. He has testified the injury report Ext. 2. No pellet was recovered. No X-ray was done as it was not needed. He has stated that some of the injuries might have been caused by fall. Injury Nos. 4 and 7 can only be sustained by different shots. 8. P.W. 4 is the Investigating Officer of his case who was posted at Kako P.S. on the alleged date of occurrence. He has stated that he heard a rumour that one person had been assaulted with fire arm and on that basis he moved to the place of occurrence and after reaching Jehanabad Hospital he recorded fardbeyan of the injured. He has also stated about seven injuries including the injuries caused by fire arms. The informant and his nephew have supported that the injured had been assaulted on the alleged date of occurrence. He has stated that Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 2) could not come before him earlier to give his statement. Only he came on 27.7.83 and his statement was recorded by him. He did not give any explanation for such delay. He has further stated that the alleged firing took place at Kako Jehanabad Road. He visited the place of occurrence and found black spot three hundred yards north from the place of occurrence. According to him, it was due to explosion of ex- plosive substance. 9. The defence has also ex- amined witnesses to prove alibi of the appellants. D.W. 1 is the Member of Parliament. He has stated that Laljee Yadav was at Jehanabad from 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence. They were discussing about a programme organised by his party which was to be commenced in the month of May. Other two D.Ws. have proved the presence of co-accused Raj Kumar in the village at Alinagar Pall 8.00 km. from the place of occurrence. These two witnesses have also produced a semen receipt Ext. B in which signature of his appellant was there along with defence witnesses. 10. In this case there is no dispute that the informant was injured at the place of occurrence and he was hospitalised for his treatment at Jehanabad. from the place of occurrence. These two witnesses have also produced a semen receipt Ext. B in which signature of his appellant was there along with defence witnesses. 10. In this case there is no dispute that the informant was injured at the place of occurrence and he was hospitalised for his treatment at Jehanabad. However, prosecution could not examine any person from the block office to prove that appellant No. 2 had gone to attend the meeting and was returning after attending the meeting. It is also not in dispute that the injured informant was inimical and was on litigating term with the appellants. From the record it appears that there were many cases and counter cases going on between them. It is also evident that recently they had some dispute over the purchase of land belonging to one Akhtar Husain. It appears that the informant was mukhiya and well to do person of the village. Thus, he was against the activities of Indian People Front extremist outfit believing in annihilating the established persons and violence. They were more bitter since two of them were killed at the instance of the informant. It is also evident that P.W. 2, Rajendra Pd., nephew of the informant was not available for his statement on the date of occurrence and his statement was recorded after three months of the occurrence. As such, his evidence becomes doubtful. So far as medical report is concerned, the doctor has opined in Paragraph 8 of his evidence that fire arm injury Nos. 1 to 4 could not be caused by one shot. These injuries were possible by three different shots. He has not written in his injury report that which were the wounds of entry and which were exit of the wounds. In the injury report charring wounds have been added over the word wound and when he was asked as to whether it was added later, he denied it. Therefore, even the injury report is not beyond reasonable doubt. The stand of alibi of the appellant Laljee cannot be thrown out without any specific reason. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove its case. Therefore, even the injury report is not beyond reasonable doubt. The stand of alibi of the appellant Laljee cannot be thrown out without any specific reason. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove its case. If the evidence of P.W. 2 is disbelieved the only eye witness in this case is the informant himself who is an interested and partisan witness and the possibility of false implication of the appellants cannot be ruled out. It is also not convincing that a known inimical person of the same village would choosen on such a busy place and in broad day light to kill the informant keeping in risk his own life as well, being identified by the villagers and the informant. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel that the story of prosecution is based on improbability and has not been corroborated by independent witnesses. As such, appellants deserve benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The conviction and sentence passed by the Court below are set aside and the appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. In the result, this appeal is allowed.