Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 536 (PAT)

Ram Chandra Choudhary v. State Of Bihar

2001-07-06

B.N.P.SINGH

body2001
Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellant suffered conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on being tried by the Additional Sessions Judge XI. Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 833 of 1986 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The facts of the case are too short for elaboration. While Arvind Kumar (PW 8) was chatting with his villagers, namely, Ranjit Prasad (PW 5), Bundeshwar Prasad (PW 6), Jagdish Prasad (PW 4), and Jhagaru Paswan on a culvert, which situates west of the village Faridpur, about collection of subscription for celebrating Laxmi Puja, it was alleged that Ram Chandra Choudhary (appellant) abruptly came there and registered protest about collection of subscription exhorting others not to pay subscription for the purpose. It was alleged that after Arvind Kumar registered protest to the exhortion made by the appellant, not exchange ensued between them, following which the appellant dealt dagger blow on the left arm of Arvind Kumar and, cautioning others not to follow him, retired from the place of occurrence. 3. A police case was registered on behalf of Arvind Kumar and investigation commenced, on conclusion of which, the Police submitted charge-sheet before the Court and the appellant on being committed to the Court of Session was eventually put on trial. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses and the trial Court placing reliance upon them, rendered verdict of guilt sentencing the appellant in the manner stated above. It would not be out of place to mention here that though the appellant stood charged under Section 307, IPC, the trial Court, on consideration of the evidences placed on record and also regard being had to the attending circumstances of the case, while finding the appellant not guilty under Section 307, IPC, convicted him under Section 324, IPC and sentenced him as such. All the witnesses examined during trial, barring PW 1, PW 2, and PW 10, who were formal witnesses, as also the doctor, who was PW 11, claimed to be the ocular witnesses of the occurrence. The doctor examined the injured and noticed incised wound of 1- 1/2" x 1/6" x 1/2" on the left arm on the person of Arvind Kumar. The injury was found to be simple in nature caused by a sharp cutting weapon. 4. The doctor examined the injured and noticed incised wound of 1- 1/2" x 1/6" x 1/2" on the left arm on the person of Arvind Kumar. The injury was found to be simple in nature caused by a sharp cutting weapon. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the finding recorded by the trial Court on the premises that though the wearing apparels of the injured were suggested to be matted with blood, there was no evidence about the seizure of these wearing apparels by the Investigating Officer, and eventually their chemical examination to come to a conclusion that the blood found on the wearing apparels were the human blood. It is sought to be urged that as the Investigating Officer, who had the opportunity to visit the site of the occurrence and record statement of the witnesses, had not been examined at the trial, the defence was prejudiced for his non-examination. The next limb of the argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant was that the witnesses were non-else but interested and partisan on whom no reliance can be placed. 5. While evaluating the testimony of the witnesses, who claim to be ocular witnesses of the occurrence, one can help feeling that it was most coherent and echoes to the tune of the version of the prosecution. Though the witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, I see that no evidence was brought on the record by the defence to militate against the bona fide of the prosecution case. As for merit of the prosecution witnesses, one can find that barring Ayodhya Prasad (PW 3), none of the witnesses were suggested to be related with the injured and that apart, his evidence too did not suffer from infirmity for its rejection. Though some oblique motive was sought to be attributed to the prosecution, allegedly for false prosecution of the appellant, there was no good evidence on this score. 6. It was suggested by the defence that since the appellant was not vacating the land which he was ploughing, he was falsely implicated in the case. This suggestion was stoutly refuted by the witnesses. 6. It was suggested by the defence that since the appellant was not vacating the land which he was ploughing, he was falsely implicated in the case. This suggestion was stoutly refuted by the witnesses. Though some of the witnesses had made candid admission in their evidence about the appellant having instituted a case on Arbind Kumar and others, but it would appear from the evidence of Pw 9 that Arbind Kumar and others were acquitted of the charges in the eventual trial. 7. Though names of Harihar Prasad (PW 7) and Ayodhya Prasad (PW 3) did not find mention among the persons, in the fardbeyan of the informant, who were present at the time of the occurrence, their evidence being consistent with the prosecution case, cannot be discarded, and that apart, presence of Harihar Prasad (PW 7) has been testified by other witnesses including PWs 3. 4, 5, 8 and 9. Similarly presence of Ayodhya Prasad (PW 3) has been narrated in the evidence of PW 4. 8. Though the Investigating Officer of the case was not examined at the trial, and objective finding recorded by him could not be placed on record but for that alone, the defence cannot be prejudiced. There may not be motive for the occurrence but as this is a case of direct evidence, attribution of motive would not be imminent for the prosecution. 9. The evidence of the doctor, who recorded positive finding that there was incised wound on the left arm of the injured, has also corroborated and lent assurance to the prosecution version. Evidence given by some witnesses about blood oozing out from the wound and having dropped on the ground but there being no such objective finding by the Investigating Officer on the record cannot be possibly discarded on that count alone. It is a well proved case in which the appellant was convicted by the trial Court on meticulous appreciation of the evidence placed on record and that too with a sound reasoning. 10. However, this fact cannot be lost sight of that the prosecution was launched against the appellant in the year 1984, about more than 17 years back and the impugned judgment was delivered by the trial court about 11 years back. 10. However, this fact cannot be lost sight of that the prosecution was launched against the appellant in the year 1984, about more than 17 years back and the impugned judgment was delivered by the trial court about 11 years back. Since, the appellant had faced the rigours of the prosecution for about 17 years and sword of damocles had been hanging over his head for such a long period with speculation for future, I find that ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the appellant instead of sentencing him to undergo a substantive imprisonment, is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) which would be payable to the injured within two months from today. 11. With the modification in the order of sentence to the extent indicated above, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is discharged from the liability of the bail bond. Mr. Saroj Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel, who has appeared in this case as amicus curiae, is directed to be paid his fee by the Legal Services Authority, Patna High Court.