Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 319 (PAT)

Madan Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2001-04-09

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

body2001
Judgment Ashok Kumar Verma, J. 1. The sole appellant, Madan Prasad Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him in Sessions Trial No. 217 of 1982 by Second Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years. 2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that the informant, Jang Bahadur Rao and others are Bataidars of accused, Madan Prasad Singh, Mahendra Prasad Singh and Pun Kali Prasad Singh. A case regarding Bataidari is pending before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bettiah. The informant had grown Bhadai crops in the land and some other Bataidars had grown Agahani crop. On 20.7.1979 at about 20 clock in the day accused Pun Kali Prasad Singh, Madan Prasad Singh, Mahendra Prasad Singh and Chandra Kishore Prasad Singh armed with gun arrived on the said land along with ploughs and bullocks. About 400 persons were with these accused-persons. The accused-persons started ploughing the land to which the informant and others protested on which the accused-persons started firing on them and the informant and others started running away and concealed themselves in the houses of different persons. Ramchhatri Rao, Rama,shray Rao, Jamadar Rao, Jhapsi Mahra, Ram Balak Mahra, Bircha Rao, Faudar Rao, Baidyanath Rao and others were coming from behind and they were also hit by bullet. 3. On the fardbeyan of the informant a formal First Information Report was drawn in this case. After investigation police submitted chargesheet against the accused, Mahendra Prasad Singh, Chandra Kishore Singh, Madan Prasad Singh and Pun Kali Prasad Singh. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused, Pun Kali Prasad Singh and Madan Prasad Singh and charges were framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused Mahendra Prasad Singh and Chandra Kishore Prasad Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Pun Kali Prasad Singh and convicted accused Chandra Kishore Prasad Singh, Mahendra Prasad Singh and Madan Prasad Singh under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Pun Kali Prasad Singh and convicted accused Chandra Kishore Prasad Singh, Mahendra Prasad Singh and Madan Prasad Singh under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years each. Accused Chandra Kishore Prasad Singh was also convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each under each of the sections. The sentences are to run concurrently. 4. The present appeal has been filed by accused Madan Prasad Singh only and he is the sole appellant in this criminal appeal. The defence of the accused- appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 5. It was contended by the learned lawyer for the appellant that this appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case as a result of counter case, which had been instituted by accused Mahendra Prasad Singh against the informant and others. 6. In this case 11 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 8, Baijnath Rao has been tendered by the prosecution. PW 9, Jang Bahadur Rao is the informant of this case. According to him on 20.7.1979 at 20 clock in the day he learnt that the land was being ploughed and he went there and saw that accused Mahendra Prasad Singh, Pun Kali Prasad Singh, Madan Prasad Singh and Chandra Kishore Prasad Singh along with 300-400 persons had gone to the land and they started ploughing the land to which he had protested. He has stated that Mahendra Prasad Singh had ordered for assault and when firing started he went to Chamartoli and 10-12 persons were hit by the pellet and in the meantime, Daroga came there. Further according to him Jhapsi Mahra, Ram Balak Mahra, Indrasan Rao, Ramashray and others were injured and all the four accused-persons had fired. He has said that his statement was recorded by the Daroga at the police station and after finding it correct he had put his signature on it whereas PW 10, Alimuddin Khan. Further according to him Jhapsi Mahra, Ram Balak Mahra, Indrasan Rao, Ramashray and others were injured and all the four accused-persons had fired. He has said that his statement was recorded by the Daroga at the police station and after finding it correct he had put his signature on it whereas PW 10, Alimuddin Khan. Sub-Inspector of Police has stated that on the information given by the Choukidar he had gone to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Janga Bahadur Rao in village Basantpur and read it over to him and he had put his signature on it after finding it correct. So there is contradictory statement regarding the place of recording of the Jardbeyan PW 9, Jang Bahadur Rao has stated that all the four accused- persons had fired. There is contradictory statement of the witness regarding number of accused-persons, who had fired from their respective fire arm. PW 10, Alimuddin Khan, the I.O. of the case has said in his cross-examination that witness. Jang Bahadur (PW 9, the informant) had not stated before him that Madan and Pun Kali had fired, rather he said that they were saying as Maro-maro PW 5, Jhapsi Mahra, PW 6, Indrasan Ram and PW 7, Briksha Rao have also not said that this appellant, Madan Prasad Singh had fired on the informant and others. PW 6, Indrasan Ram has stated that Mahendra Singh and Chandra Kishore Singh had fired. PW 7, Briksha Rao has also stated that Mahendra Singh and Chandra Kishore Singh had fired. PW 5, Jhapsi Mahra has also stated that Mahendra Singh and Chandra Kishore Singh had fired. So these witnesses, PWs 5, 6 and 7 have not made any allegation of firing against the appellant, Madan Prasad Singh and PW 9 Jang Bahadur Rao, the informant had not made such statement before the I.O. (PW 10) of the case. 7. PW 10, Alimuddin Khan, the I.O. of the ease has said in his cross- examination that the witness Ramashray Ram had stated before him that Madan Singh and Pun Kali Singh were not present at the time of occurrence. PW 1 is Ramashray Rao. He has stated that Mahendra Singh, Nand Kishore Singh, Madan Singh and others were there and Mahendra Singh was getting the land ploughed. PW 1 is Ramashray Rao. He has stated that Mahendra Singh, Nand Kishore Singh, Madan Singh and others were there and Mahendra Singh was getting the land ploughed. He has said that Madan Singh and Nand Kishore Singh had fired as a result of which Jhapsi Mahra, Ram Balak Mahra, Parmeshwar Mahra and Faudar Raut were injured. He has said in his cross- examination that he had not said before the police that Madan Singh was not present at the place of occurrence, which fact is not supported by the I.O. He has also said in his cross examination that he could not say as to who was injured by whose firing. PW 2 is Faudar Rao. According to him, Mahendra Singh, Madan Singh and Chandeshwar Singh had fired causing injury to him, Baijnath, Ramashray, Ramagya and Ramchhatri, whereas according to PW 1, Madan Singh and Nand Kishore Singh had fired causing injury to Jhapsi Mahra, Ram Balak Mahra, Parmeshwar Mahra and Faudar Raut. So among the injured persons besides Faudar Raut, name of different persons have come as injured in the evidence of PW 1, Ramashray Rao and PW 2. Faudar Rao. PW 2 Faudar Rao has said in his cross-examination that he has no concern with cultivation of disputed land. If he had no concern with the disputed land what was the purpose of his going there. PWs 1 and 2 have made contradictory statements. PW 10, the I.O. of the case has said in his cross-examination that Faudar Rao had not said before him that Madan Singh and Pun Kali Prasad were present at the time of occurrence. In the facts and circumstances of the case no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. 8. PW 3, Ram Balak Ram has stated that Mahendra Singh, Chandreshwar Singh and Madan Singh had fired causing injury to him. Jhapsi, Briksha, Faudar and Jug Gumani Ram, whereas PW 4, Ram Chhatri Rao has said that Chandreshwar Singh had fired and Madan Prasad Singh had also fired. So according to PW 3, Ram Balak Ram, three persons had made firing whereas according to PW 4, Ramchhatri Rao only two persons had fired. PW 3 has said in his cross-examination that the land of Madan Singh is separate and there is a case of Bataidari in respect of the land of Madan Singh. So according to PW 3, Ram Balak Ram, three persons had made firing whereas according to PW 4, Ramchhatri Rao only two persons had fired. PW 3 has said in his cross-examination that the land of Madan Singh is separate and there is a case of Bataidari in respect of the land of Madan Singh. Admittedly the land of Madan Prasad Singh is not the place of occurrence. PW 4 Ramchhatri Rao has said in his cross- examination that he has no concern with the disputed land. PW 10, the I.O. has said in his evidence that witness Ram Balak Mahra had not stated before him that Madan Prasad Singh and Pun Kali Singh were present at the place of occurrence. PW 5, Jhapsi Mahra has stated that Mahendra Singh and Chandra Kishore Singh had fired causing injury to him and Ram Balak and a child and others were also injured whose name he does not remember. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he is not Bataidar. PW 5 has not said that accused Madan Prasad Singh had fired on any one. So these witnesses, PW 3, Ram Balak Ram, PW 4, Ramchhatri Rao, PW 5, Jhapsi Mahra and PW 6, Indrasan Ram have made inconsistent and contradictory statements. PW 10, Alimuddin Khan, the I.O. of the case has said in his cross- examination that he has not mentioned in the diary that he had found the paddy crop ploughed. He has also said in his cross-examination that the witness, Indrasan Ram had not stated before him that Madan Singh and Pun Kali were present at the place of occurrence. PW 9 Jang Bahadur Rao the informant of this case has stated that he had gone to Chamartoli when firing had started. He has said in his cross-examination that they had fled to different directions when there was firing. So he has himself made contradictory statements. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no safe reliance can be placed on his evidence. PW 11 is Dr. R. Azam who had examined the injured persons. It cannot be inferred from his evidence that the accused-appellant, Madan Prasad Singh has committed the offence as alleged. 9. The prosecution witnesses have made inconsistent contradictory and improbable statements in respect of accused Madan Prasad Singh and so no safe reliance can be placed on their evidence. PW 11 is Dr. R. Azam who had examined the injured persons. It cannot be inferred from his evidence that the accused-appellant, Madan Prasad Singh has committed the offence as alleged. 9. The prosecution witnesses have made inconsistent contradictory and improbable statements in respect of accused Madan Prasad Singh and so no safe reliance can be placed on their evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge against accused-appellant Madan Prasad singh beyond all reasonable doubts. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused- appellant Madan Prasad Singh is entitled to benefit of doubt. He is accordingly acquitted of the charge under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the accused-appellant, Madan Prasad Singh is set aside. He is discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.