Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 551 (PAT)

Jatta Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2001-07-09

B.N.P.SINGH

body2001
Judgment 1. The sole appellant suffered conviction under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on that count on being tried by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 1983. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass which can be narrated with brevity. It was alleged that while Uma Shankar Mahto, P.W. 7, was getting the wheat bundles wrapped in the field along with labourers who were working in the field, the appellant emerged and resisted him from harvesting the crops which was followed by assault with dagger on his face and chest and Uma Shankar Mahto, finding no prospect to escape, retired to his house. The incident was shown to have been witnessed by Shiv Kumar Gareri, Chhattu Gareri and Sangerwa, daughter of Shiv Kumar Gareri. It was alleged that shortly after receipt of injury by Uma Shankar Mahto, he was carried to Dumraon hospital where he was treated by the doctor who attended him. It was alleged that after the alleged occurrence took place at 6.20 p.m. on 7/04/1982, fardbeyan of Uma Shankar Mahto was recorded by Sri K. C. Singh, S.I. at State Dispensary, Dumraon at 22/30 hours on the same day. After the police case had been instituted, the investigation commenced, on conclusion of which the police laid charge-sheet in the Court and the appellant eventually being committed to the Court of Session, was put on trial. 3. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses of which Ram Chandra Mahto, P.W. 1, Chhattu Gareri P.W. 2, Bhim Mahto P.W. 4 and Uma Shankar Mahto P.W. 7 are said to be ocular witnesses of the occurrence, Rajmuniya Devi, P.W. 3, happens to be the mother of the injured who too claims to have witnessed her son injured. The evidences placed on the record would suggest that firstly the injured was taken to Dumraon hospital and from there he was referred to Buxar hospital and from Buxar he was also brought to Patna for better treatment as his condition appeared to be critical. The trial Court after evaluating the evidences placed on the record rendered verdict of conviction and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 4. The trial Court after evaluating the evidences placed on the record rendered verdict of conviction and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant could assail the finding recorded by trial Court primarily on two counts. It is sought to be urged that while Shiv Kumar Gareri and Sangarwa who were suggested to be available at the place of occurrence at the material time of incident were the most competent witnesses to give ocular version of the incident, were not examined in the trial, those who were suggested to be ocular witnesses were none else but the interested and partisan witnesses. In quick succession it is sought to be urged that while P.W. 1 happens to be none else but the Pattidar of Jatta Mahto, the appellant, P.W. 2 happens to be a labourer and P.W. 4 happens to be maternal uncle of Uma Shankar Mahto who are expected to be most interested witnesses in the affairs of the informant. The next limb of argument pressed on behalf of the appellant was that since the Investigating officer of the case was not examined at trial, the objective finding of the Investigating Officer could not be brought on the record and hence the defence was seriously prejudiced on that count. About finding recorded by the trial Court on strength of the injury report, it is sought to be urged that though the injury report was pressed into service for drawing a conclusion adverse to the appellant, yet the doctor was not examined at trial. The learned counsel appearing for the State countered the argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant. 5. On evaluating the evidences placed on the record one cannot help feeling that the prosecution case suffers serious infirmity for which reasons are explained. It was the case of the prosecution which would transpire from the evidence of the witnesses that the said piece of land where the harvesting of wheat was being carried by Uma Shankar Mahto, came to his possession following execution of a gift from one Feka Mahto. If the evidence of P.W. 2 is to be given into consideration, name of Uma Shankar Mahto was recorded in Khatiyan following execution of deed of gift, and rent receipts were issued by the Government in his favour. If the evidence of P.W. 2 is to be given into consideration, name of Uma Shankar Mahto was recorded in Khatiyan following execution of deed of gift, and rent receipts were issued by the Government in his favour. If the evidence of P.W. 3, Rajmuniya who happens to be none else but the mother of Uma Shankar Mahto is to be given credence, the appellant had relinquished his claim over the land and deed in respect thereof had also been executed by appellant. Suffice to say that no such document suggesting acquisition of title or possession in favour of Uma Shankar Mahto over the land of Foki Mahto which is shown to have come in possession by virtue of execution of deed of gift, was ever brought on the record by the prosecution. The witnesses had narrated in positive terms that there was land dispute between the parties on this count, as the appellant too had been claiming title over the land in question. Though Uma Shankar Mahto was examined at trial as P.W. 7 but it is admitted that he was not cross-examined by the defence on account of non-appearance of the counsel for the defence. True it is that there was no evidence of mitigating nature to discredit this witness in absence of non-cross-examination of witness by the defence. However, there is yet another disturbing feature in the prosecution case which cannot be lost sight of. Though the trial Court reached to conclusion on the basis of injury report which is adverse to the appellant, the doctor who was the author of the injury report had not turned up. It is a strange story as to how the injury report Ext. 4 was brought on the record, as no witness ever appeared in the dock to bring the said document legally on the record. It would be seen from the finding recorded by the trial Court that the injury report was pressed into service presumably because the doctor was dead though there is no evidence on the record about death of the doctor so that the injury report would have carried some credence. It would be seen from the finding recorded by the trial Court that the injury report was pressed into service presumably because the doctor was dead though there is no evidence on the record about death of the doctor so that the injury report would have carried some credence. The last but not the least, as was urged on behalf of the appellant, those who could have been competent witnesses and their names had been transpiring in the early version of the informant, were withheld by the prosecution as no one of them except Chhattu Gareri was examined at the trial. It was also sought to be urged that though the witnesses had been stating that the injured suffered 8 or 10 injuries, and even if the injury report which does not bear legal value, in absence of evidence of author, is considered for some collateral purpose it would not show so many injuries on the person of injured. Though the witnesses had been narrating before the Court that the blood oozed out from the wound dropped on the ground but as the Investigating Officer of the case was not examined at trial, many questions remain unanswered. Lastly even though the injuries were shown to be simple in nature as it would appear from the finding recorded by the trial Court, the verdict of guilt was recorded under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code primarily because the informant stated in his evidence that the appellant inflicted blow with intention to kill him. Least said is better about the conclusion drawn on the solitary evidence of the informant without attending circumstances, to attract mischief of S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On total appreciation of evidence brought on the record one cannot help feeling that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish charges against the appellant. 6. Having taken into consideration evidence placed on the record and the findings recorded against the appellant, I have no hesitation to hold that the charges brought against the appellant had not been established by the prosecution beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. The finding recorded by the trial Court is accordingly set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge brought against him and is discharged from the liability of bail bonds. The appeal is thus allowed. Appeal allowed.